Jump to content


Photo

Sciences Were Never Meant To Discover "origins".


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
47 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 December 2009 - 02:46 PM

Just taking an example:

"I study the universe" is inclusive of "I study how the very beginning of the universe". They are not exclusive things. They're given the same label, cosmology, because they both study the universe. But "cosmology" includes both areas of study in its definition - because the latter study above is included within the first field of study.

#22 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 18 December 2009 - 03:29 PM

Just taking an example:

"I study the universe" is inclusive of "I study how the very beginning of the universe".  They are not exclusive things.  They're given the same label, cosmology, because they both study the universe.  But "cosmology" includes both areas of study in its definition - because the latter study above is included within the first field of study.

View Post

Thanks to martemius, I think I am being presented with the very first instance of equivocation in my, thus far, one and only thread/topic.

You imply that any & all studies (sciences) must also include the study of origins of said studies (sciences), sorry for being harsh, but you are wrong.

Staying with the cosmology example, and I'll remove the faith part, I reiterate:
"...discover that it is full of certain gases. (never even caring about 'how it got there')"

#23 b00tleg

b00tleg

    BANNED

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Meridian, Idaho

Posted 18 December 2009 - 03:33 PM

Here it is, maybe the first and last topic I'll ever start.

Please refer to this site:
http://www.ancientsc...m/sciences.html
(a list of "Ancient Sciences")

I hand-picked some; some I just liked and some that have more significant meaning to my topic.

anthropology = study of human cultures
- NOT  the study of the origins of humanity!

biology = study of life
- NOT the study of the origins of life!

cosmology = study of the universe
- NOT the study of the origins of the universe!

diabology = study of devils
- just thought this interesting.

ecology = study of environment

futurology = study of future
- How can one "study" the future? (rhetorical)

garbology = (yep) study of garbage
- Maybe those people are actually scientists!

heresiology = study of heresies
- hmmm

ideogeny = study of origins of ideas
- maybe we should start sub-study on the idea of evolution :)

kidology = study of kidding
- kind of like, say, um, evolution  :)

limacology = study of slugs
- no wonder I never liked lima beans :(

Mariology = study of the Virgin Mary
- interesting

nautics = art of navigation (for my bro)

odology = science of the hypothetical mystical force of od
- huh? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Od_force)

paleo-osteology = study of ancient bones
- isn't that a doctor we'll all visit someday?

runology = study of runes
- what the heck is a "rune"? (rhetorical)

stasiology = study of political parties
- unbiased, non-presumptive, scientific study I'm sure

tegestology = study and collecting of beer mats
- now I could go for a degree in this branch ;)

vulcanology = study of volcanoes
- no, not the study of Spoc

xylology = study of wood
- sounds more like the study of laughing out loudly whilst playing the xylophone

zygology = science of joining and fastening
- or, the study of Duct Tape  B)
So, what's my point?
Simply put, sciences are meant to study things, and not with any presumption of outcome, rather to discover whatever is to be discovered.  I believe God commands us to do this in Genesis 1 when He says "...have dominion over..." (vss. 26 & 28)  God wants us to wonder at His creation, yes to unfold what we can while we can.  He gave us an enormous capacity for thinking.  He gave us an intelligence above all creatures on Earth, yet a "little lower than the angels" (Psalm 8:4-5)
[see also Psalm 8:3 & 6, another reminder that God created it all and gave us "dominion" over it]

Evolutionists have 'mutated' the sciences into 'proving' their theory.  The evo's are surely going to bite my head off by saying something like "we don't have to 'prove' our theory, but there are mountains of evidence that 'support' it".  The same evidence, as shown in other threads, that creationists use to support creation - but then the evo's insist that we 'prove' creation!

I will now enjoy your responses.

View Post


Hi. Just wanted to offer up my opinion on the subject. If science is an inquisitive process, if things in the world have a beginning, and if evidence can be found of a thing's beginning, then I would say one can naturally reason that science can in fact, study the origins of any particular thing. If things have a beginning, then origins becomes a necessary consequence of the scientific process, because in my opinion, science seeks to learn all the knowledge that there might be about a thing.

#24 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 December 2009 - 04:44 PM

...I would say one can naturally reason that science can in fact, study the origins of any particular thing.

View Post

I want to repair this phrase so the relevance of this topic may come to light:

...then I would say one can naturally reason that science can lend to speculations about the origins of any particular thing.

View Post

It may seem like a minor adjustment but acceptance of this rational change forever puts to bed the notion that evolution is proven or even could be proven, scientifically that is.

#25 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 19 December 2009 - 07:19 AM

Science is all about asking questions, and then using experiments or observations to find answers. There needs to be a presumption of outcome- this forms the basis of a hypothesis, which is then tested. You seem to be suggesting that a scientist should never ask questions, make predictions, and test his or her predictions... which is the very basis of the scientific method. 

View Post

Hi Isabella,
Haven't heard from you for a while. I don't have a problem with what you are saying--it is what you are not saying. First, it is not so much that there are evolutionary models in science--it is the absolute dominant emphasis of it in all of science. As I have said before, when I took biology in HS in 1977, we studied little on evolution or the relation of species. It was the lymphatic system, the cell, plants, osmosis, photosythesis, the circulatory system, and how they worked. There is a potential lifetime of study in the subjects of biology and how they work.

Moreover these are empirical studies, because they are before your eyes. But the origin of these things is not empirical. Yes, we can make inferences from our experiments (that goes for creationists also), but we can never observe it. So there is no scientific guarantee that our inferences prove anything.

If you walk into Barnes and Noble and go to the science section your going to find Darwin and the latest books on evolutionary thinking. Meanwhile you will be lucky to find molecular biology, or geology 101. That's because evolution sells and people are concerned about their origin. But most most people are not willing to dig for truth--their desire and trust is in a PhD spoon feeding them.

#26 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 19 December 2009 - 06:40 PM

... when I took biology in HS in 1977, we studied little on evolution or the relation of species.  It was the lymphatic system, the cell, plants, osmosis, photosythesis, the circulatory system, and how they worked.  There is a potential lifetime of study in the subjects of biology and how they work.

Moreover these are empirical studies, because they are before your eyes.  But the origin of these things is not empirical.  Yes, we can make inferences from our experiments (that goes for creationists also), but we can never observe it.  So there is no scientific guarantee that our inferences prove anything.

View Post

I really like this post, thanks AFJ. It goes right to the point of this topic and answers the posts in opposition.

********************************************************

I pose this question, specifically to Isabella, martemius and b00tleg:
Why is discovering the origin of life, the world, the universe so important?

Allow me to qualify my question - discovering the origin of a disease is of utmost importance, by discovering its origin we could hopefully eradicate the disease - this is good science.

OK, so, why? And please do not answer with "because", think about your answer and be brutally honest, why?

#27 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 20 December 2009 - 08:16 PM

You started with evolution, that is bias.

View Post

That would not be considered an experimental bias unless I left no room in my experiment for evolution to be proven wrong... but I clearly did, through the inclusion of a null hypothesis.
You would have a difficult time finding a scientific paper that was biased to support the desired conclusion, regardless of the results. Such a paper would not pass reviews in the scientific community.

This is the point at which reasonable thinking persons might wonder where all that programmed information came from. To then hypothesize (and CONCLUDE) anything other than intelligence is, in my opinion, ludicrous.

View Post

A reasonable person would never draw a conclusion based on an observation alone, unless the observed event can be attributed to a well-established fact. If you saw an object fall off a table, you would be safe to conclude gravity was the cause. But there is no law saying that complexity requires intelligence.

But the origin of these things is not empirical. Yes, we can make inferences from our experiments (that goes for creationists also), but we can never observe it. So there is no scientific guarantee that our inferences prove anything.

View Post

I agree with you that we cannot conclusively find an origin that we have no way of testing or observing. Yet while we cannot guarantee that our inference is correct, we can find evidence that either supports or contradicts it. For example, through the study of evolution we have found strong evidence that birds originated from reptiles.

If you walk into Barnes and Noble and go to the science section your going to find Darwin and the latest books on evolutionary thinking. Meanwhile you will be lucky to find molecular biology, or geology 101. That's because evolution sells and people are concerned about their origin.

View Post

Very true, and a lot of these books contain the bias that I just said is avoided in scientific papers. Books and the media are designed to grab people’s attention and shape their opinions. People don’t want to read books about how we may have evolved from fish, or how there might be a God... they want to hear that we did evolve from fish, or there absolutely is a God. But books aren’t really representative of empirical science, at least not the books you’ll find at Barnes & Noble.

Why is discovering the origin of life, the world, the universe so important?

View Post

I think the reason goes beyond scientific importance. People are curious, and we can’t help but wonder how all this got here. It’s kind of ironic that you don’t see the importance in studying origins, because religion is not only about knowing where we came from, but devoting a big part of your life to that origin: God.

#28 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 20 December 2009 - 10:50 PM

That would not be considered an experimental bias unless I left no room in my experiment for evolution to be proven wrong... but I clearly did, through the inclusion of a null hypothesis.

View Post

Your proposed "experiment" looked rather one-way to me, serving only to "prove evolution right". What possible outcome would "prove evolution wrong"?

#29 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 21 December 2009 - 06:27 AM

I think the reason goes beyond scientific importance. People are curious, and we can’t help but wonder how all this got here. It’s kind of ironic that you don’t see the importance in studying origins, because religion is not only about knowing where we came from, but devoting a big part of your life to that origin: God.

View Post

There is no irony in me (Bob) not seeing the importance in studying origins, I know how we got here.

While your answer is not as "brutally" honest as I was hoping, it does contain a clue: it "goes beyond scientific importance", i.e., while science is important, it is not as important as proving evolution.

#30 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 22 December 2009 - 12:44 AM

May I ask, who do you count as evolutionists? Presumably you would include biologists and paleontologists, who explicitly study biology and evolution. What about astronomers, geologists, and particle physicists? These sciences give support to the great age of the universe and the earth, and thus indirect support to biological evolution. Would you also include non-scientific engineers who make the instruments used by biologists, astronomers etc?

I'm just trying to understand which professions you believe are coloured by evolutionist bias, and which ones are not.


I only count those who count themselves.

There are "biologists" and also "evolutionary biologists", a, relatively speaking, new 'science'. There are also "creationist biologists", my speculation is that this is an even newer 'science'.

View Post


Hi again bobabelever

Well, I'm pretty lost as to just what is meant by "origins". In the history of science people have stumbled upon (what I would call) the origins of things all the time, often whilst looking for something else (or not looking for anything at all).

Marie Curie stumbled upon radioactive decay, which is the origin of various isotopes, the origin of the heat in the earth's core etc.

Angelo Secchi, noticing an aberration in the spectral lines in sunlight, discovered the magnetic fields on the sun's surface, which are the origin of sunspots.

I would guess neither of these scientists would identify themselves as evolutionist, but they discovered the origins of various things. Maybe science was never meant to discover origins, but it just does, sometimes. Or am I missing something here?

Cheers
SeeJay

#31 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 December 2009 - 05:58 AM

Well, I'm pretty lost as to just what is meant by "origins". In the history of science people have stumbled upon (what I would call) the origins of things all the time, often whilst looking for something else (or not looking for anything at all).

View Post

You bring up a good point but there may be some semantics detangling required here. I may run the risk of sounding equivocal here but I think there could be a distinction between source and origin in these two contexts that are note worthy or simply between contextually varying meanings of 'origin' in two different cases.

Through the law of cause and effect we can define the source of a phenomena but regarding ultimate origins, cause and effect cannot be eternal. This common understanding keeps outspoken atheists in a small minority for now. The more logic and reason is abandoned the more recruits atheism may enjoy.

However, I will say that your statement is noteworthy in this discussion, SeeJay.

#32 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 22 December 2009 - 02:40 PM

Well, I'm pretty lost as to just what is meant by "origins". In the history of science people have stumbled upon (what I would call) the origins of things all the time, often whilst looking for something else (or not looking for anything at all).

You bring up a good point but there may be some semantics detangling required here...

View Post

Absolutely, SeeJay and Adam do bring up a valid clarification.

Origin vs. Source vs. How Stuff Works

The point of this topic is to identify that evolutionists have perverted the sciences to prove evolution, rather than simply discover what there is to be discovered. Radioactive decay, magnetic fields, the origin/source of a disease - this is all good science.

A "biologist" can simply discover that there is design involved, no frustration, just wonderment and amazement.

An "evolutionary biologist" will ultimately be frustrated. Why? Because there is programming involved after you've reduced, and reduced, and reduced, there is still programming involved; design is obvious.

********************************************************
My question still stands:
Why is discovering the origin of life, of the world, of the universe so important?

(BTW: After reading it again, I think Isabella's response isn't more than a long winded "because".)

#33 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 23 December 2009 - 01:56 AM

Absolutely, SeeJay and Adam do bring up a valid clarification.

Origin vs. Source vs. How Stuff Works

The point of this topic is to identify that evolutionists have perverted the sciences to prove evolution, rather than simply discover what there is to be discovered.  Radioactive decay, magnetic fields, the origin/source of a disease - this is all good science.

A "biologist" can simply discover that there is design involved, no frustration, just wonderment and amazement.

An "evolutionary biologist" will ultimately be frustrated.  Why?  Because there is programming involved after you've reduced, and reduced, and reduced, there is still programming involved; design is obvious.


Hi again bobabelever

It sounds like you are equating "evolutionist" with "atheist". An atheist biologist will certainly be frustrated at the obvious design in nature, and he brings this frustration on his own head through faulty philosophy. But why should a Christian evolutionary biologist be frustrated at discovering the hand of God in the natural world? It must be a wonderful experience.

I think you're right about one thing: science properly is about "how stuff works", finding causes for effects. But once we've identified a cause that explains a wide range of effects, the question then becomes: What caused that cause? And so it goes on, looking into ever more fundamental causes. In this way, I suppose, science may appear to be seeking after ultimate origins of things, but its really just looking for the next cause in the chain, going further down in scale, or backwards in time, or what have you, depending on the situation.

My question still stands:
Why is discovering the origin of life, of the world, of the universe so important?

View Post


I don't believe it is important. I think science should be about exploring the next unknown cause, in a chain of already discovered causes and effects. As long as its working from the basis of things known reliably from evidence, towards the next incremental step in the chain, I would say good science is being done (other things being equal).

Cheers
SeeJay

#34 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 23 December 2009 - 08:30 AM

It sounds like you are equating "evolutionist" with "atheist". An atheist biologist will certainly be frustrated at the obvious design in nature, and he brings this frustration on his own head through faulty philosophy. But why should a Christian evolutionary biologist be frustrated at discovering the hand of God in the natural world? It must be a wonderful experience.

View Post

I suppose this is because of our differing worldviews. I fully accept that there are theistic evolutionists, although as a literalist (Biblically) and a YEC I just don't get it. The term "Christian evolutionary biologist", to me, is an oxy moron. But you are right - there should be no implication that all "evolutionists" are "atheistic".

I think you're right about one thing: science properly is about "how stuff works", finding causes for effects. But once we've identified a cause that explains a wide range of effects, the question then becomes: What caused that cause? And so it goes on, looking into ever more fundamental causes. In this way, I suppose, science may appear to be seeking after ultimate origins of things, but its really just looking for the next cause in the chain, going further down in scale, or backwards in time, or what have you, depending on the situation.

The point of this topic is exactly that, cause and effect is good science; one is "discovering". Biology is discovering, and it is a relatively easy task, because you are only reporting what you discover.

Evolutionary biology is purposefully on a mission to prove an evolutionary origin, just like creation biology is purposefully on a mission to prove a creation origin (I must say that I don't think there would be any "creation biologists" if nobody ever invented "evolutionary biology") . Both have a difficult task; they are each trying to prove the "first cause".

Once we reach the place of irreducibility did God put a stamp on His work? I don't think so :o

I don't believe it is important. I think science should be about exploring the next unknown cause, in a chain of already discovered causes and effects. As long as its working from the basis of things known reliably from evidence, towards the next incremental step in the chain, I would say good science is being done (other things being equal).

Thank you SeeJay :lol:

#35 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 December 2009 - 11:03 PM

Here it is, maybe the first and last topic I'll ever start.

Please refer to this site:
http://www.ancientsc...m/sciences.html
(a list of "Ancient Sciences")

I hand-picked some; some I just liked and some that have more significant meaning to my topic.

anthropology = study of human cultures
- NOT  the study of the origins of humanity!

biology = study of life
- NOT the study of the origins of life!

cosmology = study of the universe
- NOT the study of the origins of the universe!

View Post


Cosmology is the study of the universe and by extension its origin.

Biology is the study of life and by extension its origin.

Looking at something and not wondering how it got there and how everything else doesn't tie into it is senseless. What's the point of studying something partially??? I could sit in a lab all day long and be amazed at petroleum, but our curiousity regarding its origins is why we can find oil with orders of magnitured better efficiency than we did 20 years ago.



Evolutionists have 'mutated' the sciences into 'proving' their theory.  The evo's are surely going to bite my head off by saying something like "we don't have to 'prove' our theory, but there are mountains of evidence that 'support' it".  The same evidence, as shown in other threads, that creationists use to support creation - but then the evo's insist that we 'prove' creation!

I will now enjoy your responses.

View Post


Nobody tries to prove the theory of evolution. No scientist will tell you they're 100% certain contemporary evolutionary theory is never going to be replaced.


Absolutely, SeeJay and Adam do bring up a valid clarification.

Origin vs. Source vs. How Stuff Works

The point of this topic is to identify that evolutionists have perverted the sciences to prove evolution, rather than simply discover what there is to be discovered. Radioactive decay, magnetic fields, the origin/source of a disease - this is all good science.

A "biologist" can simply discover that there is design involved, no frustration, just wonderment and amazement.

View Post


Because the point of science is to learn. Slapping the "design" stamp on something doesn't increase our knowledge and it has no application.

BTW dude, that's a great picture.

#36 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 26 December 2009 - 07:55 AM

Cosmology is the study of the universe and by extension its origin.

Biology is the study of life and by extension its origin.

View Post

This is where we disagree. Cosmology and biology are simply studies of X, and does not include "by extension" its origin.

We know there are now evolutionary biologists & creation biologists and, I suppose, evolutionary cosmologists and creationist cosmologists - these are specifically studies of the origins of X.

"Evolutionary" and/or "Creationist" sciences have a very difficult task, proving that there side is right, whether they would ever admit to it or not - they are trying to "prove" it. They each take the same evidence and look at it from their own presumption of origin, neither side will ever come to a point of "see, I told you so, and here is my 'proof'".

I could sit in a lab all day long and be amazed at petroleum, but our curiousity regarding its origins is why we can find oil with orders of magnitured better efficiency than we did 20 years ago.

Your use of the word origins is related to SeeJay's and Adam's clarification - it's "origin" inside the Earth, where we find it, is not "where it came from" or "how it got there". You help me prove my point. It is only when you add an evolutionary presumption, or a creation presumption, that is when you get into arguments of "how" the oil got there.

BTW dude, that's a great picture.

Thanks, it was taken at a Winter Formal, I had both of my daughters with me, on either side. It was a proud moment :lol:

#37 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 01 January 2010 - 09:13 AM

Because the point of science is to learn.  Slapping the "design" stamp on something doesn't increase our knowledge and it has no application.

View Post

So basically what you're telling us is this; Even if design is true, we must ignore it because of the a priori assumption that recognizing design keeps us from increasing our knowledge. So tell us, if design is true, making garbage up that goes against the evidence is a way of increasing knowledge for you, tharock220?

#38 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 January 2010 - 11:45 AM

Slapping the "design" stamp on something doesn't increase our knowledge and it has no application.


Furthermore, how would one determine design in nature? You might detect artifice in a shapened flint or a signal from space by comparing it to known patterns of artificiality or its fit within its environment - not an approach applicable to nature as a whole as we have no other nature/universe with which to compare. Some recent hypotheses attempt to infer intelligent agency from apparent improbabilities but do not explain why complexity must derive from intelligence rather than unknown or unconfirmed natural processes.

#39 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 01 January 2010 - 12:14 PM

Furthermore, how would one determine design in nature?  You might detect artifice in a shapened flint or a signal from space by comparing it to known patterns of artificiality or its fit within its environment - not an approach applicable to nature as a whole as we have no other nature/universe with which to compare.

View Post

By the same token, how do you then go about determining that things are not designed by your same logic? The sooner you deal honestly with your own presuppositions, the sooner the conversation can become rational.

Some recent hypotheses attempt to infer intelligent agency from apparent improbabilities but do not explain why complexity must derive from intelligence rather than unknown or unconfirmed natural processes.

View Post

You make it sound like you're dealing with new ideas. :D :lol:

BTW, natural processes confirm design right down to the core of existence. You can't get away from it and this is why you scurry with great intellectual zeal to ignore the obvious.

#40 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 January 2010 - 07:36 PM

By the same token, how do you then go about determining that things are not designed by your same logic? The sooner you deal honestly with your own presuppositions, the sooner the conversation can become rational.


I fully accept that one can neither confirm nor refute design within nature through observation. My presupposition on this point is that there may or may not be a designer.

BTW, natural processes confirm design right down to the core of existence. You can't get away from it and this is why you scurry with great intellectual zeal to ignore the obvious.

View Post


I would need an example of nature revealing design to be persuaded of its obviousness.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users