At issue is whether or not this constitutes a false counterposition ...
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
On the failure to find God's fingerprints ...
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Ah, I think I may get what you are driving at.
While we may know the mechanism that drives mutation, natural selection and so on... we can never 'prove' that "God" has/hasn't got an invisible finger nudging molecules around.
One can justify 'faith' in either conclusion.
Naturally I could be way off base.
wa:do
While we may know the mechanism that drives mutation, natural selection and so on... we can never 'prove' that "God" has/hasn't got an invisible finger nudging molecules around.
One can justify 'faith' in either conclusion.
Naturally I could be way off base.
wa:do
Or continents.
kai
ragamuffin
Or continents.
ah i think i had a moment of clarity, there is no reason why the whole process could not have been kickstarted, or even nudged along in certain places. interesting idea.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Just as we can never 'prove' that my car isn't really being pulled by an invisible magical liopleurodon.
Answer the question posed in the opening post or pollute elsewhere ...
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Answer the question posed in the opening post or pollute elsewhere ...
You must not have understood my point because it does relate to the opening post.
No, I completely agree that it was irrelevant. Now, yet again, answer the question posed in the opening post or pollute elsewhere.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Here, let me make it easier for you.
While we may not be able to 'prove' what caused the advent of bipedalism, there are perfectly reasonable natural causes that can adequately explain it without having to posit some imaginary magical being, just as the internal combustion engine adequately explains why my car moves without positing an invisible magical liopleurodon.
So what?
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Exactly... you can't 'prove' that god doesn't nudge the molecules in the petrol vapor to make it burn.
"proof" has no place in such a discussion. (indeed it can not, as there is no way to offer 'proof' either for or against.)
Logically it doesn't need to be god... but that doesn't preclude god from participating.
wa:do
"proof" has no place in such a discussion. (indeed it can not, as there is no way to offer 'proof' either for or against.)
Logically it doesn't need to be god... but that doesn't preclude god from participating.
wa:do
Halcyon
Lord of the Badgers
Radiation, inefficient DNA repair/replication, mutagentic chemicals, maybe even free-radicals could have caused the advent of the mutations associated with bipedalism in the individual, natural selection could have caused the advent of bipedalism within the population.
Alternative - God did it.
Alternative to the alternative - Doctor Who did it.
No one can say for sure, except perhaps God and Doctor Who but they're not very forthcoming...
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
well, the Doctor isn't one for giving things away.
On the other hand lots of people like to tell others what God 'really' thinks.
wa:do
On the other hand lots of people like to tell others what God 'really' thinks.
wa:do
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
There isn't one; science cannot detect the supernatural, nor is it appropriate to try. If you want to believe that every mutation is chosen by God, go for it. However, be aware that:
-most mutations are nuetral.
-many mutations are harmful.
-a few mutations are beneficial.
So that would be an odd way for God to proceed. Basically, the pattern that we see looks the same as if they were occurring randomly. It's just like any other test for God, He always behaves exactly as if He didn't exist. Hmmm...I'm seeing a pattern.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Or coins. Maybe God decides while each one is in the air whether it should come down heads or tails. It just so happens that He chooses heads about 50% of the time, exactly as though it were random chance. That kind of God begins to look an awful lot like random chance. And randomness looks to me a lot like non-existence.Or continents.
But, if God used what you're calling random chance to bring about existence, would that not mean that in his absence you would just call whatever other mechanism that existed random chance?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Sorry, I didn't understand you.
Respectfully, I am very much aware of these things and have been for many, many years.
Why only these two options? Why is just lucky in double quotes?
How is an act of intervention on the table as an option? Its unproven fabrication with no evidence and stated in a most un-scientific manner.
Why is it even considered lucky? What was going on that would make walking on two legs so lucky?
What would it indicate if we didn't walk on two legs?
Why do you think this one step in evolution (excuse the pun) is even all that difficult to form a plausible theory on? Why focus on walking on two legs? Ostriches walk on two legs... Whats the point of this discussion? Is this an attempt to debunk evolution by fraudently claiming the advent of bipedalism can only be adequately explained by the touch of god?
Last edited:
