Oh, but it does.
You see, sometimes the theory that is dismissed, bounces back to stand in place of the one that was the "best explanation", rendering it obsolete.
So, believing one thing over another, when you don't know, but claiming you do, is simply making a choice to believe one over the other.
The ones who believed otherwise, were right, and you weren't.
That's significant.
And that is where you need more evidence and in some cases, this might not be possible and therefore we might be left with multiple explanations. But that doesn't mean that
ALL explanations are equally valid.
I don't disagree. I say this all the time. You need more evidence.
Running with pieces of circumstantial, and claiming it's all you need, when it isn't enough, leads to embarrassment.
I never said that. And besides that, a theory can have gaps in it. Newton got it wrong and Einstein provided some more evidence or clarifications. That doesn't mean that Newton was an embarrassment, never thought I should write something like that about probably the brightest person ever to have lived
But the fact is that Newton for whatever reason couldn't "solve" it, but even though his equation is not 100% accurate, it is still used, but there are certain things where one would prefer to use Einstein's instead. But what Newton provided at the time, was the best possible explanation we had.
...but what if that's done, and its ignored? See above.
That is a flaw in humans and done at a time when the scientific method wasn't as fine-tuned as it is today. But as you say a lot of these things have happened over time. God of gaps is a common example of this, which Newton also did, but today after these experiences, I think it is less likely that you will find scientists that fall into this. So the scientific community is aware of this and obviously also tries to improve how science is done etc. But it does also bears witness to the strength of the method because as I wrote in the last post, it is self-correcting, so at some point, someone will come around and figure out where things went wrong. We are talking about people here and mistakes are happening, maybe we lack the technology to do something etc. Looking at the early astronomers, I bet you can find lots of things they were wrong about given what they had to work with, but again over time, these things gets corrected.
So I'm not saying that science is not wrong at times, but what alternative do we have? People working in these fields are probably doing the best they can with what they have.
Aha! My aha moment.
Rubbing my hands together with an evil grin
If that belief changed, and was overturned five years from now, would you say you knew, or would you admit you really didn't know?
You would have no choice... embarrassing.
No, that would be equal to pointing fingers at Newton and laughing at him for being wrong or Einstein for not buying into quantum physics. Again, we are working with whatever evidence is the best at a given point in time. In 100 years, people might be laughing at how stupid we were today for believing all kinds of things, when it is obvious that the Universe didn't start with a big bang or whatever. So even if they are wrong, we should celebrate that they figured out the truth rather than laughing at those believing it, when that was what the evidence showed at the time.
I wouldn't dream of making fun of a person living 4000+ years ago or whatever for thinking that Earth was flat. Because it does seem pretty damn flat if you have no clue or ways of measuring it.
[Religion] is designed in such a way, that it is self-correcting, so if something is wrong, someone will notice it at some point and correct it.
What's the difference?
If religion was self-correcting, then why don't people agree about it? Is hell real or not? Is the holy trinity true or not?
I don't believe, like you, in the evolution theory of the first seeds, you see.
That's why I asked you the question. I'm not interested in the beliefs scientists have about seeds.
But I believe that evolution is true. Doesn't matter if it's a tree or an animal. But I'm not a biologist that is specialized in evolution. So it would be nonsense for me to try to explain to you how the seed evolved because I have no clue. But I have enough trust in those people working in the field of evolution that if I would like to know, I would look up the evidence that their explanation is based on. Otherwise, I would simply fill you with nonsense. If you don't accept their explanation that is perfectly fine, but then I would have to point you to someone that knows about it to present your case and then they can explain it. You can see in the short quote I send you the number of weird names involved, I have no clue what they are. But
if I really had a huge interest in knowing, I don't doubt that I could read up on it and eventually give you an explanation or valid argument for why it is believed that seeds evolved as they did. But I'm not going to do that, I neither have the interest in seeds to do it and it would probably be a lot easier for you to do it yourself.
And if you are not interested in what the scientist has to say, why on Earth would you be interested in hearing my guesses about it, based on absolutely nothing?
But feel free to show me whatever you want, but if it is something technical that you found on some random website, I can't argue against it. But could probably find someone else who has debunked it or have a counter-argument to it, but again it wouldn't be my knowledge.
Yup "Christians" are the majority. Not only here, but in the world.
Yes, but there are lots of different believes even within Christianity as I mentioned, if you directed me to a JW as a Christian, someone else would jump in and disagree with that person.
It doesn't surprise me, we are talking about something that happened millions of years ago. But as I said in an earlier reply, that doesn't mean that people don't believe that they evolved but there might be details within seed evolution that are not well understood or that they don't agree on.
Yes but that doesn't always exist. Big bang? there is a lot of evidence showing it to be true. But we can't travel back in time and see if it is. So we won't get "solid" evidence.
I don't agree, and I understand that many people have said the same about what you believe... including thousands of scientists, mind you.
Fair enough all I'm reading is you disagreeing, which is perfectly fine, but what is the evidence put forward by all these people?
The Bible talks about reproduction. Scientists came centuries later, and added to it.
Reproduction is not a mystery. Evolution or why things need to change/adapt is not a logical conclusion in a perfect system created by God. God could have foreseen these things and simply made it so it wasn't required. What purpose for God's overall plan does evolution serve? Sin and forgiveness, being saved, going to hell etc.
Sorry. No. If that's what you are talking about, then show me from the Bible, because, for one thing, that's not what I read. For another, I have not read of those mistakes being God's.
My argument was not that God make mistakes, simply that evolution is filled with them, and things don't always go well, lots of species go extinct for whatever reason constantly.
But anyway, the best example of God making a mistake is probably in Genesis and the flood:
Genesis 6:5-8
5 - The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 - And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
7 - So the LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.”
8 - But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
If God is unable to make mistakes and knows everything I would argue that it would be impossible for such God to ever feel sorry or regret.
The Bible on the other hand, tells us... “Be fruitful and become many... multiply."
And what does this tell you? Why did God want that, what is his overall goal with this, why couldn't we just self-replicate like hermaphrodites, I assume it would go a lot faster? It explains nothing. Just as Sin and going to hell don't explain anything.
What? Sorry, can you explain that, in a way that it makes sense?
The point is that if you see a tree house build in the middle of a forest from the very trees around it, you know it is designed by someone. When we look at animals, for instance, some of them might be considered more attractive than others, maybe peacocks think those with the most feathers are the ****. So they tend to reproduce more than those with a few feathers and over time peacocks will evolve into peacocks with generally more feathers and those with less will die out. That is not designed, it is evolution playing out. Even though humans have become taller in the last few hundred years, that doesn't mean that you won't see short humans, but in general, the average height of humans is higher, which is caused by evolution as well.
The average height of men was 171.4 cm in 1920 and increased by 7.3 cm to 178.7 cm in 1970. Over the last 30 years, average height has increased only 1 cm, to 179.7 cm in 2000.
Ah. ...but you see, one of those is not human.
Gotcha!
So you can't tell design just from looking at something, as you claimed. Designed things do not stand out, apart from undesigned things, as you are suggesting.
So, there must be another way.
Fair enough
Given that we know it is easy to fool people, even in movies where they don't even exist at all.
Or you could be fooled by a computer talking on the phone or on a forum etc. It doesn't really change the fact, that even though you might have fooled me, you had no issue figuring out it was designed
