Belief in abiogenesis and macroevolution probably originates from the fear that there is a moral absolute and you are not the center of the universe. Because we want to live in sin and selfishness, it’s easy to believe anything that denies God. Fear driving atheism.
You don’t understand the definition of faith.
Once again, atheists repeatedly demonstrate they don’t understand what constitutes evidence.
As a Christian, I realize that I am extremely unlikely to cause you to reevaluate your beliefs based on anything I could state in a post on this thread. Conversely, my faith would be as weak as a wet paper bag if it could be shaken by anything a non-believer could say.
Proof does not equal, nor is the same, as evidence.
Sure, science involves a kind of "faith" — but it's scientific faith, based on known knowledge, working hypotheses, and openness to revision if new data presents itself.
Simple question, based on humans existing forever ... wouldn't that get boring ?? Of course, I don't know if it would, or not, but it seems to me that it certainly might. Not a wish for death, just a question with regard to boredom possibilities. I cannot think of a single thing that does not get boring after a while during my lifetime. I just questioned if the concept of eternity would get boring ?? Something never ending ... ??Life getting boring as an argument for death.
This thread is replete with atheists denying their faith and trying hard to ignore the failings of macro-evolutionary theory (yeah a theory with huge problems that atheists post as truth, based on faith). And, we get the DNA comparisons between chimps and humans as what? Proof of evolution or proof of common design?
Faith in your belief drives your posts here.
Now life getting boring is the hope for death. Geez.
Start with your first comment. It relates to the topic of this thread more than the second. Is there a God? You do not have a disbelief in God based upon any scientific evidence. Science proves the existence of God as much, or more, than disproves God. There is no “scientific faith” that God does not exist. You see that, right?
Simple question, based on humans existing forever ... wouldn't that get boring ?? Of course, I don't know if it would, or not, but it seems to me that it certainly might. Not a wish for death, just a question with regard to boredom possibilities. I cannot think of a single thing that does not get boring after a while during my lifetime. I just questioned if the concept of eternity would get boring ?? Something never ending ... ??
Just that simple ... because I cannot relate to anything lasting forever or the concept of never being bored. Fwiw ... when I get bored, I usually take a nap.
I never get bored. I’ve been out all morning taking a walk, watched the sunrise from my porch swing, did some yoga out in the grass. The Bible teaches us how to be simple and content with simple and I love it. If i gain entrance to the kingdom of heaven and get to spend eternity with my forefathers and friends just being simple would be enough for me to never be bored.Simple question, based on humans existing forever ... wouldn't that get boring ?? Of course, I don't know if it would, or not, but it seems to me that it certainly might. Not a wish for death, just a question with regard to boredom possibilities. I cannot think of a single thing that does not get boring after a while during my lifetime. I just questioned if the concept of eternity would get boring ?? Something never ending ... ??
Just that simple ... because I cannot relate to anything lasting forever or the concept of never being bored. Fwiw ... when I get bored, I usually take a nap.
I understand. So, your answer is NO.
YES. There is no question that the simple things are usually the best.
When I talk about "scientific faith," I don’t mean belief that God doesn’t exist — just as there’s no belief that a purple unicorn creator doesn’t exist either. It’s not faith in a conclusion; it’s faith in a method — the idea that the best way to understand the universe is through observation, testing, and revision.
If you are paying attention and not working backwards from a conclusion, you will see science affirms the idea of design in the universe. You can take the myths in which you believe and work those in to your liking.
If science affirmed design as a conclusion, it would be a scientific theory — but it’s not. What we do see is that people interpret the complexity of the universe as design, which is a philosophical or theological view, not a scientific one.
I think you are fooling yourself if you think it’s the religious who start from a conclusion.
I don’t think it’s fair to say design is a scientific theory in the way gravity or evolution is. Scientific theories go through peer review, make testable predictions, and can be revised or thrown out based on evidence. “Design” doesn’t do that — it’s more of a philosophical or theological idea. That’s not inherently bad, but it’s not science.
Cannot read past your first paragraph. Design is every bit the scientific theory as evolution. Bad start to make your case.
If we’re going to talk science, then let’s talk standards. A scientific theory isn’t just “an idea that seems plausible” — it’s a framework that’s testable, falsifiable, and predictive. Evolution meets those criteria. Design doesn’t. It can’t be tested or falsified — which makes it a belief, not a scientific theory.
Test macro evolution for us. Test abiogenesis for me. Come on, you are creating a double standard to suit your beliefs.
I get where you're coming from — but this isn’t a double standard. Macroevolution is testable. We see the genetic record, fossil transitions, and it makes predictions that pan out (like where to dig for certain fossils). Abiogenesis is harder — no one claims we’ve nailed it — but scientists are working on testable models. That’s the key difference: one side builds models and tests them. The other asserts design and stops there.
Macro evolution is a theory that is under great distress right now. It’s not testable. And there are many problems with the “theory.” Problems acknowledged within the scientific community.
Complexity doesn’t automatically mean design, and order doesn’t require intention.
Design theory is solely based upon observable scientific facts. More so than abiogenesis. Abiogenesis was an accepted theory that worked from the theory backwards.
