???
| Posted On: 01/29/09 06:01:39 PM |
Age 31, CA |
Referring to your third point. Which simpler organism exactly are you talking about? Is their any evidence for this "simpler organism"? If so what?
Click here to reply to this post
|
a few points
| Posted On: 01/29/09 08:59:22 AM |
Age 38, TX |
Several points. First, the original responder merely said that there is an evolutionary advantage to sexual reproduction, and tried to suggest what it was. There's nothing wrong with that in itself, though I suspect that it's not the kind of explanation you are looking for.
Second, there's nothing wrong with there being things that cannot be explained by science. Science is, after all, a search for explanations. There are evolutionary questions that science can explain, and others that it cannot now explain. That's the nature of any science. The lack of an explanation is not a problem.
Third, obviously sexual reproduction would have begun long before dogs, in a much simpler organism.
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Interesting...
| Posted On: 03/19/09 04:04:15 PM | | Age 30, MD |
"Second, there's nothing wrong with there being things that cannot be explained by science. Science is, after all, a search for explanations. There are evolutionary questions that science can explain, and others that it cannot now explain. That's the nature of any science. The lack of an explanation is not a problem."
This is an interesting statement. Since "there's nothing wrong with there being things that cannot be explained by science", would it be fair then to say that there are faith/spiritual questions that science cannot now explain & that the lack of an explanation is not a problem?
Click here to reply to this post
- Yes, but science does propose to ANSWER questions, not avoid them.
| Posted On: 01/29/09 10:17:02 PM | | Age 43, ND |
I understand your point and it has some validity.
However science proposed to answer questions and the science that came up with the Big Bang Theory to answer some questions, created some unexplained questions at the same time. These questions are much more difficult to explain than the original questions. Your proposal that just because it doesn't have the answers yet does not mean that their theory isn't right. I will grant you that, but the same argument is just as valid when it comes from any other point of view or theory, and therefore it is meaningless. Who has the best answers now? I would suggest that its not the scientist who came up with the gobbledygook answer shown in the article.
Click here to reply to this post
Science/ Srong Delusion
| Posted On: 01/29/09 08:44:25 AM |
Age 45, TN |
I'm convinced that my mind would have been held captive by the strong delusion of so-called Science had it not been for the grace of God and bold witnesses like Ray Comfort. Thanks Ray, keep on telling the truth.
Click here to reply to this post
|
|
|
|
