I also don't think humans existence is "accidental" we are the product of natural selection, which is not a random process, individual genetic mutations may be random, but which mutations survive is not random.
Whether loaded or not, the question is logical and remains valid!
Surely those presuming the right to challenge and condemn the rationale behind others' belief systems, shouldn't have any objection to being called upon to justify their own!
Now would you like to provide a valid logical response to the concerns I raised?
Why should this logical rule of "natural selection" exist in the first place ?
The scientific explanation seems to be limited to "it exists because it exists", which is fundamentally evasive and unsatisfying.
The scientific explanation seems to be limited to "it exists because it exists", which is fundamentally evasive and unsatisfying.
Simply because once you have a population of self replicating organisms, the slight variations in the individuals in the population will cause the individuals to survive at different rates. The ones who variations cause them to be better suited to their environment will survive and breed the others will die out.
it would actually be more remarkable if there was no natural selection, because this would mean no variation, and every individual survived at the exact rate, that would never happen.
mainstream science treats its perceived "heretics" and threatens them, just like religion does.
No they don't, there are thousands of examples where scientists have completely re written the mainstream scientific understanding through new discoveries, I think you would struggle to find a religion that has given up their foundational belief.
If science does not know something, then no possibility can be excluded, . . .
I doubt you really meant this. Possibly could be expressed better?
I am not pushing religion on people, the only reason I mentioned religion being a messenger was because it was brought up about being taught in schools, private schools.
..
The only way you can stop people learning is banning it, and that's where my post went....
Its a pity that VC doesn't extend his gratitude on what built this country, with our Christian Values, how quickly we forget. The rich depth of religion speaks volumes, from music to art to architecture, the list goes on, how much it has contributed in society.
People have rewritten scientific laws but when scientists suggest the possibility of intelligent design then you can plainly hear the cries of "witch, witch", even though science cannot explain fundamental ideas of how life arose or how the universe began. If science does not know something, then no possibility can be excluded, but still there is denigration of people for even suggesting the possibility of intelligent design.
Some sort of intelligent involvement in the creation of the universe is a valid possibility. Laws usually require a lawmaker. To exclude this possibility in the absence of evidence to the contrary is unscientific.
Obviously human law code is made by humans, But there is no evidence to suggest that the natural laws of the universe required a designer.
You haven't provided any evidence of an alternative. I'm saying that a creator is the simplest explanation.
You haven't provided any evidence of an alternative. I'm saying that a creator is the simplest explanation.
Your switching the burden of proof. It's not up to me to disprove your claim, it's up to you to prove it.
Your not understanding how science works, We don't just accept any idea just because we can't prove something else, you have to be able to prove your claim before it can be accepted science.
Until we do know, people are entitled to believe what they want. ?
Your belief in the absence of a god is just a belief, not backed up by evidence. My belief in a god is belief not backed up by evidence. What's the difference
Some sort of intelligent involvement in the creation of the universe is a valid possibility. Laws usually require a lawmaker. To exclude this possibility in the absence of evidence to the contrary is unscientific.
Cynic we know what you are doing when you load a question....
A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. [3] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[4][5]
This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?