T
tjm190
Guest
You don’t believe things can be made out of their parts?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
edwest2
Guest
The fullness of truth is required for those who know what God did.Science offers the complete scientific perspective by definition. Our universe is one of cause and effect, so obviously observation of said universe has it’s limits given that an out side cause must have been involved.
I add divine revelation to my world view- not to my scientific knowledge.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
No. If it were possible, it could be done in the lab today. It can’t.You don’t believe things can be made out of their parts?
Peace,
Ed
D
Dharles_Carwin
Guest
youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE
Creationsits need to answer the questions in the above video. There is no need for a god.
Creationsits need to answer the questions in the above video. There is no need for a god.
B
buffalo
Guest
Chuck is that you? Are you back?youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE
Creationsits need to answer the questions in the above video. There is no need for a god.
D
Dharles_Carwin
Guest
Think you have the wrong person mate, i just couldn’t get the user name i wanted as it was already in use.Chuck is that you? Are you back?
B
buffalo
Guest
Have you not followed the threads and the early life conditions with oxygen?youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE
Creationsits need to answer the questions in the above video. There is no need for a god.
The earliest cells were complex, not simple.
The links are already provided.
W
wanstronian
Guest
Wow.No. If it were possible, it could be done in the lab today. It can’t.
Peace,
Ed
That’s some statement. You’re saying that science has reached its limits. We’ll never be able to do more than we can do today.
D
Dharles_Carwin
Guest
Once you have cells your are talking about evolution, the objection was with the synthesis of early cells. Tell me do you object to any of the stages mentioned in that video?Have you not followed the threads and the early life conditions with oxygen?
The earliest cells were complex, not simple.
The links are already provided.
R
rossum
Guest
Isaac Newton could not build an electronic computer in his lab so are you saying that it will never ever be possible for anyone to build an electronic computer? There are lots of things we can do now that we could not do in the past.No. If it were possible, it could be done in the lab today. It can’t.
What we cannot do now in science may well be possible in future as we gather more knowledge of the processes involved.
rossum
R
redneck22
Guest
stevebee92653 has made a good reply video here youtube.com/watch?v=FjvPFQP2Suk&feature=response_watch and he also has a cool website, check it out evillusion.net/youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE
Creationsits need to answer the questions in the above video. There is no need for a god.
OK, let’s look at what we know.We do not know many of the details I agree, but we do know something.
No we don’t.We know that there was no life on earth 6 billion years ago.
We know there is no evidence of said life of this age on earth.
The lack of evidence is not support of anything other then another “we don’t know”
Assuming we are to except the premise you provided above.We know that there is life on earth now. Therefore we can know that somehow life on earth originated some time in the last 6 billion years.
But again I would simply point out, lack of evidence is not proof of anything.
You would be assuming a lot.
Again, you are assuming the lack of evidence is proof of abscence.We know that there are four fundamental forces in the universe: gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak. We know that there are various particles: photons, electrons, protons, neutrinos etc. We know that there are various chemical elements both in the universe and in living bodies. There is no evidence of anything beyond the four forces, various particles and elements that we have found involved in life. Therefore life must have originated from these things somehow.
This is not always the case.
Just because we have not detected anything beyond the four forces you outline does not mean nothing further exists. And it may well be it of which life is built.
You claim we have found no need, but you also must concede that we have not created life. Apparently there is something missing.We have begun to tease out some of the details of how, and so far we have found no need for anything beyond what was already known to science: known forces, known particles and known elements.
I am not trying to place God anywhere.We have advanced beyond the stage of “we do not know” to the stage of “we know some of it, but not all of it yet”. Beware of trying to fit God into a gap that science is working to close, God will have to get smaller if He is still to fit into the gap. “We are to find God in what we know, not in what we do not know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved.” - Bonhoeffer.
rossum
I am being realistic about what is and is not.
Not true at all.science never produces certainty, but we go with what is overwhelming pointed to.
Science produces answers for a great many things.
Solid answers that are testable and repeatable.
T
tjm190
Guest
SImply false. An experiment can demonstrate that there is a 99.9% likelihood that two things have a cause and effect relationship, and two experiments can show that two things are 99.999999% percent likely to share a cause and effect relationship, but there are no 100% certainties.Not true at all.
Science produces answers for a great many things.
Solid answers that are testable and repeatable.
For example, I could postulate that fires start at completely random times- the fact that our observation makes us believe certain scenarios cause fire is irrelevant. it can be proven that I am nearly infinitely unlikely to be wrong, but never can it be shown that I am wrong with certainty.
More over, non-empirical sciences such as archeology and forensics have even greater problems.
T
tjm190
Guest
You’ve got a lot more faith in modern science than most! Anything that can not be done currently is impossible?No. If it were possible, it could be done in the lab today. It can’t.
Peace,
Ed
Yellow and blue make green.SImply false. An experiment can demonstrate that there is a 99.9% likelihood that two things have a cause and effect relationship, and two experiments can show that two things are 99.999999% percent likely to share a cause and effect relationship, but there are no 100% certainties.
Wood burns.
Metals can melt.
Water can freeze.
The list goes on.
I think you are confusing scientific theory with fact.
D
Dharles_Carwin
Guest
Well technically he is correct, science does not prove anything 100%. However i agree it proves beyond reasonable doubt.Yellow and blue make green.
Wood burns.
Metals can melt.
Water can freeze.
The list goes on.
I think you are confusing scientific theory with fact.
No, look at it closely.Well technically he is correct, science does not prove anything 100%. However i agree it proves beyond reasonable doubt.
A scientific theory can tell us what is going to happen in a set of circumstances nearly 100% of the time.
Scientific fact however is 100%.
D
djeter
Guest
From the Christian Science Monitor: Author of 30 books in Polish and five in English, Fr. Heller, an ordained Roman Catholic priest and a professor of philosophy at the Pontifical Academy in Krakow, Poland, has made the fostering of dialogue between science and religion a priority.
“He’s one of the key contributors in the international scholarly community dedicated to the creative dialogue on science, theology, and philosophy,” says Robert John Russell, founder and director of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences in Berkeley, Calif. “He’s a great example of someone who bridges these fields.”
For Heller, these seemingly distinct realms of human understanding actually depend on one another for stability. “Science gives us knowledge, but religion gives us meaning,” he says. “Science without religion is not meaningless, but lame…. And religion without science [slides] into fundamentalism,” he says. Heller draws on deep understanding of cosmology, religion, and philosophy to tackle questions such as, “Does the universe need to have a cause?” and “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
Those familiar with Heller’s work laud his rigor of thought. “In an era when serious scientists and serious religionists declare themselves at war with each other and claims of connections are often by superficial thinkers, Michael Heller is the exception,” says Philip Clayton, professor of philosophy and religion at Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, Calif. “Rigorous thinkers seem to have fled the no man’s land between the two warring factions.”
More here:
payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/11/03/fr-michael-heller/
In Christ,
dj
“He’s one of the key contributors in the international scholarly community dedicated to the creative dialogue on science, theology, and philosophy,” says Robert John Russell, founder and director of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences in Berkeley, Calif. “He’s a great example of someone who bridges these fields.”
For Heller, these seemingly distinct realms of human understanding actually depend on one another for stability. “Science gives us knowledge, but religion gives us meaning,” he says. “Science without religion is not meaningless, but lame…. And religion without science [slides] into fundamentalism,” he says. Heller draws on deep understanding of cosmology, religion, and philosophy to tackle questions such as, “Does the universe need to have a cause?” and “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
Those familiar with Heller’s work laud his rigor of thought. “In an era when serious scientists and serious religionists declare themselves at war with each other and claims of connections are often by superficial thinkers, Michael Heller is the exception,” says Philip Clayton, professor of philosophy and religion at Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, Calif. “Rigorous thinkers seem to have fled the no man’s land between the two warring factions.”
More here:
payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/11/03/fr-michael-heller/
In Christ,
dj
T
tjm190
Guest
While you can prove wood can burn, metal can melt, and water can freeze, you can not prove with absolute certainty that any particular piece of wood can burn without burning it, nor can you prove that certain actions cause the burning.Yellow and blue make green.
Wood burns.
Metals can melt.
Water can freeze.
The list goes on.
I think you are confusing scientific theory with fact.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.