Science assumes that evolution produced all the creatures that exist, beginning with a single celled organism that magically popped into existence one day for no apparent reason, and somehow had the ability to become every form of life in existence....including plants......and you have real evidence for that?.....or do you have far fetched assertions and ridiculous suggestions on which to base that belief? Be honest.
Evolution doesn't "produce" so much as
change, it needs existing organisms to work with.
It's unlikely life began with a single celled organism, and no-one but creationists believe in magic.
Life began with the
components of life forming by ordinary chemical reactions we can see every day. Chemistry, physics, competition and environment then work to create the changes we call evolution. Nothing magical, farfetched or ridiculous involved, that would be the domain of ID. All perfectly ordinary, familiar mechanisms, with mountains of tested, supporting evidence -- as opposed to the magical, unevidenced folklore of religion.
LOL....could it be that all are brainwashed with the same strongly promoted misinformation? When do you have to pull yourselves up and actually demand something concrete to back up your “beliefs”?
No "brainwashing" neededed, any more than heliocentrism or germ theory are the result of brainwashing.
The chemistry is familiar and ordinary, and the observed, tested evidence is there for anyone to examine and draw his own conclusions. There is no "strongly promoted misinformation." There is no need for any. The evidence is there for all to see - save those who refuse to see. You, yourself, seemed to have avoided it entirely.
You all throw God under the bus with so very little real reason for your defection.
There is no defection. We're not apostates from Team Religion. No-one's throwing God under the bus.
God never even comes up, as he's not a necessary component of evolution. He's extraneous.
Creationists often seem to believe in God by default: "I don't understand all this complicated biology. I don't want to understand it, ergo: it's nonesense, and goddonit is the only 'explanation' remainig" -- ignoring the fact that goddonit doesn't
explain anything, it just attributes.
Though, when you consider Christendom’s teachings and the nonsense proffered byYEC’s, I can understand how you could misunderstand the Creator,
We don't misunderstand him. He doesn't even come up.
As soon as we find evidence he exists we'll include him in our calculus, till then, we work with what we have. It seems sufficiently explanitory, so we don't feel any pressure to look for him
could there be an alternative? Is there a middle ground that allows science and theBible to be compatible?
I don't see how. they're totally different things, doing totally different jobs by totally different methods.
One is an investigative and testing modality, the other a doctrine. One investigates, the other attributes. One studies mechanism, the other attributes agency. One is evidence driven, the other faith based. One is falsifiable, the other writ in stone.
I found that there is....and I did not have to sacrifice one for the other.
Oh but you have. You don't even understand one of them, as is evidenced by your repeated misstatements, after repeated corrections, by myself and others over the past months.
Sticking with what you believe is your choice, of course.....but at least you should have something better than what you assume that we have.
We have the best evidenced explanations. Science is the gold standard.
Doesn’t your version of things require way more ‘magical proofing’ than we do? At least we have a highly intelligent mind designing what to us is clearly not accidental.
You have
folklore about an intelligent mind. You have no empirical evidence. You're trying to twist reality to fit your folklore.
The first hint of a magical attribution would get any scientist laughed out of the room.
We have an explanation. You have an attribution. We have useful information, you have an unneeded, unevidenced, untestable, unfalsifiable "highly intelligent mind" that produces nothing.
Evolutionists are quick to divorce themselves from abiogenesis....but, where life came from is the answer to this whole issue.
There you go again, with previously corrected misunderstandings and silly terms like "evolutionist." Abiogenesis is a hot topic in biology. It's an active field of study.
I can understand how you could misunderstand the Creator, but could there be an alternative? Nobody's avoiding it.
As soon as we find evidence of a creator we'll include him. Thus far there isn't even a need for him.
Where life came from or, rather, how life began, is one event nearly four billion years ago. It's not "the answer to this whole issue." I'm not even clear on what this whole issue is.
The existence of a powerful Creator leaves no unanswered questions. Your flawed theory is full of holes, and has no solid foundation....yet you cling to it like your life depends on it. Why? Only you can answer that.
A creator answers only "who?" It says nothing about "how?" It doesn't
explain anything. It's just an attribution. It addresses nothing in the entire field of science. Science studies only
how?
What is my flawed theory? I'm talking about mechanism. You're talking about agency -- apples and oranges. I'm not trying to answer, or even deal with,
anything creationists are talking about.
Full of holes? The ToE is solidly based on objective evidence and testing. That's what science does. It's Creationism that's built on sand.
Please show me a scrap of objective creationist "evidence." Creationism doesn't even
seek evidence of mechanism.
If a powerful entity exists that science cannot detect because it is not quite as advanced as it assumes itself to be, then why can’t this entity use his massive energy to create matter?
Science is not even looking for a powerful entity. Nor is it looking for faeries or Cthulu. You're falsely attributing your own concerns to a group that's entirely indifferent to them
Why can’t he use his superior intellect to design all of the complex systems that function in an amazingly harmonious way on this planet and in the laws he designed to keep everything in place?
He could, but there's no evidence for him other than 'he could conceivably exist'. Well, so could the flying spaghetti monster.
To posit something's existence you need something more than 'he could exist'. You at least need a
need for him -- which you don't have.
Complexity does not require a designer. This is a false premise.
Is gravity “magic Did gravity design itself?
Gravity just is. It's a fundamental constant. Positing an intentional designer doesn't explain it.
Who designed this intelligent designer? We could regress this forever.
God wills a lot of things......but I believe we will all find that out soon enough.....
God willing... but thus far he shows little concern about who believes in him. He could easily provide clear evidence for himself, if he wanted to. He could put an end to discussions like this with a flick of his finger. He hasn't -- for all of human history. He's entirely conjecture.