1. You said my arguments were fallacious. Point out the fallacies, don't just ask other questions. You either knew why you thought they were fallacious when you made that claim, or you were blowing smoke. So explain what you said or admit you were blowing smoke.
Before I claim confirmation bias
Research the current status of evolutionary theory and realize it is struggling scientifically right now. Not a deflection, yet atheist are in denial about that fact. Yet, it just makes sense. So …
While both can be true (and because of that, this is a useless exercise), we don’t have evidence that it took a long time for life to come into existence. We have evidence of an old universe, by human standard (and how old is being challenged right now), but we don’t have evidence that it took long for the existence of complex life. Because, the most simple of known life is incredibly complex and we don’t scientifically know how it came into being. Even the soupy concoction theory must admit that life could have been formed very quickly, without any needed expanse of time, but rather only the right circumstances. Time did not need to be a factor for those circumstances.
A poster asked what I meant by design. I twice referred that poster to the videos for a general explanation. I did not ask people to watch. But, if you consider that a courtesy, then I accept your definition of politeness. Thank you
You are now asking a philosophical question about the existence of this thread. If you are here, I would assume you, in the least, have an interest, if not a care. If you have no intention of understanding others’ positions, then you are probably like most other people. No shame. That said, so we cover this in the future, whether you read my posts or follow links I provide, I thank you in advance for your kind courtesy.
Prove that.
Mythology about God or gods is not proof for or against an actual God. The mythology about a unicorn or a Pegasus, does not disprove the existence of the horse.
It’s an irrational question. We may not ever be able to prove the existence of the real God. But, until we can disprove His existence, your question is not rational and not synonymous.
I noticed that when he first posted, because it suggests he searched out this thread. Which is okay.
So in your mind the worse sin is to dismiss that which might exist than to believe in that which probably doesn't exist.
Do you think most devout folks think of God as supernatural? To me, "supernatural" is synonymous with "fictional" at best, "fictitious" at worst. Believers are never going to agree that their God is either of those.
I have it on good authority that God created the world this morning. He chose to create a world with abundant evidence that it was billions of years old and that evolution led to all the species and fossil record and whatnot, just the way we are today.
In follow-up … has anything deemed to be supernatural ever been proven to exist ??
In follow-up … has anything deemed to be supernatural ever been proven to exist ??
Supernatural - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
In further follow-up … is abiogenesis generally considered and accepted to be supernatural, or not ??
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia
I mean design, as in not random or by accident. Some who acknowledge the evidence of design believe in panspermia. It’s not my belief and I think it just kicks the ultimate question down the road, but that is one belief. It also does not address the fine tuning of the universe that seems so astronomically positioned for life on this planet that it is not random or accident. Others may not believe in the Judeo/Christian creator, but still recognize the evidence.
I would like to hear about your experience of the supernatural.
That's like saying I have faith in Legos.
Spill the beans! You can't just tease something like that!
Not trying to be flip, but supernatural is something akin to magic, in my view:
Nope. Legos are tangible provable and real. Abiogenesis is none of those.
I would think this guy is confusing micro-evolution with macro-evolution. The Galapagos birds amounted to variations within a species. And, those birds beaks did not change permanently, but the dominant beak size changed depending upon the environment.
I think your final conclusion is one probably voiced about every change in scientific understanding. The earth was the center of the universe until a fringe/minority belief was demonstrated correct. Evolutionary theory has some real problems that even the people in the discipline have acknowledged.
It is most commonly referred to as chemical evolution and, by many people who declare macroevolution as fact, it represents the beginning of the process. It is the key to this discussion, in the most broad sense. If the simplest of life result by the intent and guidance of a designer, that is more important than what happened from there. Evolution only exists if it is designed into the system.
