Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.
I'm afraid we're locked in a stalemate on this issue . . . OOL forever lacking the details of how it all got started by natural processes, and ID forever unable to give the slightest scientific evidence of what agent could have done it.No, you are stuck in a stalemate.Your (& ID's) thought experiments are fine for philosophical or religious pondering but provide no insight, no useful information into how the Universe works. Because of these shortcomings, they won't be used by Science and scientists.If you wish for your convictions to be considered by Science, they must provide some usefulness or insight. If you can provide such an insight, then your thoughts will be considered - as long as they don't contradict what's already known.As for OOL (which I presume stands for "origin of life" and is distinct from evolution), you are wrong there too. Scientists will never be able to provide conclusive evidence of the OOL. However, current research does still provide some evidence and provides a lot of useful insights.Once again the perspective that God must have started it all, provides Science with nothing useful. If you could extend that to say "God must have started it all, therefore I would expect life to look like ___" (fill in the blank), then that might be a useful observation that could be tested.Unless/until Creationists are willing to make some predictions, have Scientists test the predictions, and find that the Creationists are correct where current theories are wrong; then Creationism as a school of thought in Science is a dead end.Somehow Bryan I think you already know this. Yet you continue to attempt to equate Science's rejection of Creationism as some sort of dishonesty. It's not. Scientists started off attempting to PROVE the events in Genesis but discovered to their dismay that the evidence DISPROVED the events in Genesis.Don't take my word for it, go out and do some direct observations of your own.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |