@sonship said@sonship said
@FMF
Yea. Well I think that you don't use your imagination to even guess the time distances between what I proposed has more to do with recognizing the weakness of gradualism to explain it.
With Darwin who only saw the cell as a blob of jelly like substance, that was more excusable. Today in 2021 with our knowledge of microbiology the weaknesses of gradualism on a ce ...[text shortened]... simply die off. Younger upcoming scientists will look for new and better explanations and theories.
@FMF
Yea. Well I think that you don't use your imagination to even guess the time distances between what I proposed has more to do with recognizing the weakness of gradualism to explain it.
With Darwin who only saw the cell as a blob of jelly like substance, that was more excusable. Today in 2021 with our knowledge of microbiology the weaknesses of gradualism on a cell level are more glaring.
I do not expect old minds to change their minds. Too many are too proud for that, having invested their whole professional lives with certain beliefs. I expect as usual old scientific minds will simply die off. Younger upcoming scientists will look for new and better explanations and theories.
None of this renders credible your claims that a creator being or entity has communicated instructions, promises and threats through revelation to we human beings.
1 edit
@sonship saidAnd what do these assertions have to do with Judaism and Islam and, your religion, Christianity?
I do not expect old minds to change their minds. Too many are too proud for that, having invested their whole professional lives with certain beliefs. I expect as usual old scientific minds will simply die off. Younger upcoming scientists will look for new and better explanations and theories.
@sonship saidI am not an expert in the topic. Me imagining some stuff at your behest creates no "knowledge" about the nature of the universe, just as you talking about religious stuff that appeals to your imagination creates no "knowledge" about the nature of the universe. There is no "cowardice" on my part.
@FMF
What does that have to do with your cowardice to even attempt to explain how gradualism of no design accounts for the thousands of machine functions in the cell?
@sonship saidAnd it will still be called science.
@FMF
Yea. Well I think that you don't use your imagination to even guess the time distances between what I proposed has more to do with recognizing the weakness of gradualism to explain it.
With Darwin who only saw the cell as a blob of jelly like substance, that was more excusable. Today in 2021 with our knowledge of microbiology the weaknesses of gradualism on a ce ...[text shortened]... simply die off. Younger upcoming scientists will look for new and better explanations and theories.
@philokalia saidThere are no 'natural' boundaries to science.
... OK, so maybe scientists should do philosophy.
But let's not call them philosophers because, remember, science is about not respecting the natural boundaries of science.
These philosophers needs be scientists.