King Phenomenon
Well-Known Member
Haha is it?Is that an order? Hahaha...
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Haha is it?Is that an order? Hahaha...
Yes. Yes it is "haha."Haha is it?
You Sure about thatYes. Yes it is "haha."
Only knowledge
We have an evidence-based reasoned view of the formation of the universe, the stars, elements, planets, our sun and the earth.
We have evidence pointing to the start of life on earth some 3.7 bn years ago
But the evolution of man from those beginnings is reasonably clearly drawn from evidence.
So far so good. I hope your own paths are smooth.Hey blü, hope you’re well....
Back when Einstein was writing his 1915 paper on Relativity, he, like Newton, thought the universe was static ─ "steady state". It's why he included a 'cosmologcal constant' in his maths. But Alexander Friedmann, a Russki, thought the cosmological constant was mathematically ugly, and merely an expedient, and in 1922 he published a paper on how the universe would look without it ─ namely passively subject to gravity. Since that doesn't work for an eternal universe, he instead hypothesized an initial impetus and an expanding universe. Einstein was slow to accept Friedmann's maths, but did so still refusing to accept that the maths had anything to do with physics. The happy ending was brought about by the RC priest Georges Lemaìtre. who, unaware of Friedmann, had covered the same terrain himself. And he saw that not only was an initial impetus required, but as part of it, a moment of creation, a beginning ─ a Big Bang. Einstein gave him the Friedmann treatment when they met in 1927. Who was right?A natural, unguided explanation? Based on what evidence, and what reasoning?
But again, it's evidence-based. I'm happy to outline the reasoning if that would be helpful ─ though you may know it already.Ever see a scientific explanation of how they think the Earth formed? It’s funny.
What makes you say that the rules of physics are insufficient to explain it?Again, no evidence providing for a natural unguided explanation. Not even recreated in a lab.
Debate is a very usual part of science, but the fossils are there, and modern dating techniques are pretty smart and give consistent results. Better than half a billion years ago there was a period in which, according to the fossil record, all the prototypes of our modern phyla, and more that have gone extinct, came into being (though I leave open the question whether a process taking place over tens of millions of years is properly called an explosion).To many scientists, the evidence from the Cambrian Explosion blows current interpretations out of the water.
Yes science does explain this. Goddidit, by the way, does not, it just posits a creative agent.A natural, unguided explanation? Based on what evidence, and what reasoning?
Ever see a scientific explanation of how they think the Earth formed? It’s funny.
1. A natural explanation is reasonably assumed. It needs no evidence. It's the default position. Goddidit is an expediency, to bolster your incredulity.Again, no evidence providing for a natural unguided explanation [for abiogenesis]. Not even recreated in a lab.
We don't need to watch every minute of development from egg to caterpillar to chrysalis to butterfly to know that the butterfly developed from the egg. A snapshot every day or two is enough evidence to reasonably conclude this.Only if you believe in the gaps, of which there are plenty! Nothing is clearly drawn from the evidence.
To many poorly informed creationists, you mean.To many scientists, the evidence from the Cambrian Explosion blows current interpretations out of the water.
Yes science does explain this. Goddidit, by the way, does not, it just posits a creative agent.
It's the extraordinary claim that Goddidit! that begs explanation.
So how does the Cambrian "explosion" support creationism, or discredit the ToE?
Exactly my point. The scientific method has become quite good at figuring out mechanism; at discovering the how of things, and that's as far as the discipline goes. It makes no value judgements or claims of purpose or intent.Yes, an intelligent cause...that’s it.
Knowing that, though, doesn’t inhibit any curiosity as to how these things were created. In fact, it gives a person a reason to search for the why...the purpose they exist. Something unguided naturalism doesn’t concern itself with.
Yes, ID is an unevidenced and unnecessary deus ex machina; something just pulled out of a hat to satisfy a psychological need, so, yes, it's an extraordinary claim.“Extraordinary”? (Sounds like an argument from incredulity.) Is this too incredulous for you? Why? Whenever patterns of functional information is found in other sciences, Intelligence is always considered the cause! Grief, the entire SETI program was based on it!
We wouldn't expect to find 'fossils' of chemical evolution. Fatty acids, membranes, amino acids, &c are not going to fossilize, yet these components of life will self assemble, by ordinary chemistry, under conditions known to exist on Earth. You could do it in a high school lab.Look at the evidence / facts: complete and functioning organisms suddenly appearing in the fossil record, with no obvious precursors discovered, even tho the strata of those periods contain finely-detailed soft anatomy...but obvious precursors are still missing!
No gradualism found.
No God, ie: nothing, is the epistemic default position; a blank slate. It's not a claim. It's a lack of claim, so bears no burden of proof.
ID is about there being an intelligent cause behind existence of matter and the forces exerting control over it.ID is..... something just pulled out of a hat to satisfy a psychological need.
On Earth, It's everywhere: in the interactions between organisms revealed in the oxygen cycle, to interactions between diverse organisms, and to that between fine-tuned physics and how it supports life. But when one narrows their POV by concentrating only on one field -- biology, for example, they won't see "the forest".Until science finds evidence of Intelligent or intentional design, it is not assumed to exist.
A strawman. It's a search for intelligence. How? By looking for patterns of information!SETI is not a search for God
Another strawman. Lol. The Cambrian Explosion reveals multicellular, highly complex forms of life, way beyond just 'chemicals'! Yet no obvious ancestral forms are found.We wouldn't expect to find 'fossils' of chemical evolution.
No...by purposeful and intelligent engineering.1. Complex organisms poofed into existence fully formed, intentionally, by magic.
"This is irrelevant. Please point out my strawman.Why do you obfuscate by constructing strawmen?
Actually, intelligence is always recognized as the source for functional structure. (It's an argument from repeated empitical observation.) So it's, "Structure existed before humans, i.e., there must be an intelligent source.
Characterize it any way you will, there is neither evidence for nor need of an "intelligent cause." Your objection is emotional.ID is about there being an intelligent cause behind existence of matter and the forces exerting control over it.
But I know you think we're saying its God. So you equate God with only satisfying a "psychological need"? (Interesting you call it a need, but yet, you don't need it?) Ultimately this sounds like something Aldous Huxley would have said, like his 'need' to throw away the idea of God.
This is not evidence for intentionality and magic. It's evidence for chemistry, physics and biology.On Earth, It's everywhere: in the interactions between organisms revealed in the oxygen cycle, to interactions between diverse organisms, and to that between fine-tuned physics and how it supports life. But when one narrows their POV by concentrating only on one field -- biology, for example, they won't see "the forest".
Of course. Research is what science does. I don't get your point.A strawman. It's a search for intelligence. How? By looking for patterns of information!
That's your objection, a God-in-the-gap? Why should we expect to find missing links? This is a typical ID false equivalency.Another strawman. Lol. The Cambrian Explosion reveals multicellular, highly complex forms of life, way beyond just 'chemicals'! Yet no obvious ancestral forms are found.
Which doesn't change the claim of it all being poofed into existence by magic. You're just tacking on an invisible poofer.No...by purposeful and intelligent engineering.