Future of Christianity in US

[watchamadoodle]

Well..ignoring the part where you said evolution is "trial and error"...

I've been trying to guess how I goofed by saying "trial and error".

Let me know if this guess is right. "Trial and error" suggests working towards a goal such as a giraffe genome "trying" to make longer necks to reach those yummy leaves?

[FatAndFaithless]

There is no goal or defined sequence or procedure to evolution. It's not a ladder or a series of progressive stages, and has no directed end point. Trial and error suggests some sort of expected result or desired conclusion, which don't exist in evolution in any way.

[Jhayward]

... And for esquilax I should add that the 'settings' cannot prove a designer... I should also note that for me the study of the universe and nature is a form of worship since I believe in a Creator... I think it is all quite remarkable and beautiful from the limits of the observable universe to the particles that give properties to matter. The study of the creation is magnificent, science and nature being a source of truth, and there is nothing to fear in finding out more.

---

LostLocke: The migration to animals that have souls, so to speak, is significant, as is the migration to humans that ask spiritual questions and create advanced civilization, in my opinion. animals that have souls interact in a unique way with humans, e.g. Dogs

[abaris]

... And for esquilax I should add that the 'settings' cannot prove a designer... I should also note that for me the study of the universe and nature is a form of worship since I believe in a Creator... I think it is all quite remarkable and beautiful from the limits of the observable universe to the particles that give properties to matter. The study of the creation is magnificent, science and nature being a source of truth, and there is nothing to fear in finding out more.

So welcome to the Stone Age when people created their gods of nature, since they simply didn't understand the workings of their environment and knew much less about the universe.

Or welcome to the times of Babylonian astrologists or the ones of Central America, who started to see a pattern and attributed it to their gods.

That's pure romanticism without even an attempt at understanding or trying to understand what other more qualified people came up with.

[Tonus]

Tonus: One cannot prove that its settings are tunable with science... Science can't do it. science is awesome but fundamentally limited.

I didn't set the condition, though I am curious which other way you might be able to prove that those settings can be changed. In any case, if it's not possible to prove it, then we cannot use it as evidence of anything. If it was possible to prove that the settings can be changed, then we would need to know if there is a range of tolerances within which life is possible. And there's no way to test that, either.

In short, we cannot even say for sure that the universe is "tuned" at all, much less that it is tuned to ideal settings, or that either of those would point to a creator.

[watchamadoodle]

There is no goal or defined sequence or procedure to evolution. It's not a ladder or a series of progressive stages, and has no directed end point. Trial and error suggests some sort of expected result or desired conclusion, which don't exist in evolution in any way.

Thanks, I wasn't thinking that way, but I can see how "trial and error" might raise a red flag.

[Ryantology]

animals that have souls interact in a unique way with humans, e.g. Dogs

This is a statement of alleged fact based upon what scientific research, exactly, Dr.? Do you have peer-reviewed literature to cite?

[Esquilax]

Fatandfaithless and others: Clearly I struck a nerve using the term macroevolution. reworded, I could just call it evolution that we cannot observe in process in a laboratory today. it extends back to origins, and as I understand it (physicist/engineer, not a biologist), the further back one goes in time, the more of a reach it is... And the more true questions remain. I think everyone can agree that not all the steps from first life to human beings are well understood. there are a number of explosions of life that were observed... And then there's that migration to human beings which is quite significant, I think, albeit maybe not anatomically or in terms of DNA.

So what if we don't have every step? A lack of knowledge is not evidence for god or creation or anything like that. And if you've got some gaps- perfectly expected given what we know of fossil formation and the sheer volume of life on the planet- but what we do know points exclusively to evolutionary theory then dismissing the genetic, morphologic, fossil and laboratory data we do have merely because of what is, at best, an argument from ignorance is not only throwing out the baby with the bathwater, it's throwing that baby into a woodchipper and then nuking that woodchipper into its component atoms.

Especially when we consider that evolution, for all its gaps, is one of the more well supported theories in all of science. Imagine what else we'd need to sacrifice if the evidence for evolution isn't sufficient, in service to your ideologically driven god of the gaps argument?

... And for esquilax I should add that the 'settings' cannot prove a designer...

The problem is more that nobody seems willing to acknowledge that they have to demonstrate that there are settings, when they argue from fine tuning.

I should also note that for me the study of the universe and nature is a form of worship since I believe in a Creator... I think it is all quite remarkable and beautiful from the limits of the observable universe to the particles that give properties to matter. The study of the creation is magnificent, science and nature being a source of truth, and there is nothing to fear in finding out more.

And what have you found- that isn't "nature is amazing!"- that could possibly constitute positive evidence for a god? Rather than an argument from personal incredulity?

LostLocke: The migration to animals that have souls, so to speak, is significant, as is the migration to humans that ask spiritual questions and create advanced civilization, in my opinion. animals that have souls interact in a unique way with humans, e.g. Dogs

You gonna demonstrate souls at any point, or just presuppose your conclusion?

[Jhayward]

Esquilax: I never suggested to ignore or dismiss any data. Nor have I stated God may be proved.

[watchamadoodle]

Esquilax: I never suggested to ignore or dismiss any data. Nor have I stated God may be proved.

Do you think it is reasonable to wait for some sort of evidence before believing in Christianity? At the very least, do you think it is reasonable to expect evidence after you wholeheartedly practice Christianity for a while?

Some Christians seem to think that believing without evidence is the way God wants it to be? Seems like an excuse to justify a phony religion.