georgeob1 wrote:ILZ demonstrates more faith in Science than most religious people put in their faiths.
By definition, no. I base my knowledge on facts, which is the diametric opposite of faith.
In cases where science is not applicable (ie- the metaphysical) I do not make any conclusion at all. Hence my agnosticism.
Not believing in a benevolent, all-powerful God is like not believing the rumor that orange penguins are going to fall from the heavens in the next fifteen minutes. It's not a leap of faith to not believe either of these things.
Quote:Creationism (whatever that means) and evolution are not mutually exclusive concepts. Even ILZ has aknowledged that evolution offers no explanation for how life got started, merely how it developed into more complex forms. That it is occurring, more or less as Darwin described it, is beyond doubt. That it offers or even outlines an explanation for the origins of life is another question entirely. There are also some disturbing uncertainties about the rate at which evolutionary development proceeds and the known geological and anthropoligical record - has there really been enough time? The possibility of design in some form cannot be proven, but it cannot be excluded either.
Your incredulous tone here is unneccessary. I, and several others, have stated
repeatedly and emphatically that evolution has nothing to do with the concept of creationism.
Evolution certainly allows the possibility of a God. The problem arises when religious rutbars misconstrue this
possibility as being a
probability. To the extent that evolution allows the possibility of a Christian God is the same extent that it allows for the possibility of an
invisible pink unicorn.
Evolution does, however, come in direct conflict with the Christian storyline of events. If a God did create the universe, he didn't do it in six days via pillers of fire, tablets of stone, lightning bolts of reason, or farts of vehemance.
Quote:It seems clear that the observable universe began with some sort of singularity. Substantial progress has been made towards the development of a consistent theory to explain the expansion of the cosmos, the formation of stars, etc. since then. Many questions remain, ranging from inflation, to dark matter and the cosmological constant , to quantum uncertainty (many universes?). However physics offers us no insight whatever to the singularity that started our universe (or the current phase of its existence). I see no basis on which to expect that it ever will.
Are you talking about the inability of science to explain what
caused the initial singularity, or its inability to describe the singularity itself. If the former, then I am inclined to agree, since the universal laws science is based on are a result of that singularity, and therefore, would have no meaning outside the universe created by that singularity. If the latter, I would have to disagree, because since the inception of the big bang theory, advances in science have explained more and more of the actual big bang event itself.
Quote:Is then our choice to examine an endless regression of cause and effect and call it Physics, or to consider that there may be an entity outside or independent of the observable universe that created or designed it?I see no meaningful difference between these views.
No, that is not the choice we are faced with. That is a string of two unrelated and myopic concepts with a question mark at the end.
Quote:Even Genesis is no more fantastic than the big bang.
.....and you were trying so hard to make sense. It almost hurts to see you take a plunge into unrestrained delusion in the last two sentences. Genises is, absolutely and without question, more fantastic than the big bang, as far as the facts go. If you want to take the fideist route and base your worldview on something other than facts, rationality, logic, and reason, then by all means, put your intellectual capital in the Genisis stock.
Toodles.
A few christian dogma are good rules to live by. The only problem is that the bible has too many bad ones.
