Jump to content

siegi91

Nonbeliever
  • Content count

    268
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

225 Excellent

5 Followers

About siegi91

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Germany
  • Interests
    Music, Philosophy, Soccer and Reading (a lot).

Recent Profile Visitors

1,823 profile views
  1. What ontology of time are you assuming in your question? I ask because it makes sense, like causality, only if you assume A-series, which correspond to what Newton thought of time. For B-series, which is the Einteinian ontology that we get from relativity, the question is meaningless. Since you use tensed verbs like “coming” I suppose you assume the former. Correct? sieglinde
  2. Yes, believe me. The Bible becomes authoritative to us only after you showed us that there is a God and that He authored it. By independent, extra biblical arguments. Otherwise, your witness will just be seen by us as an exercise of circular reasoning. Not different from saying that God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it has been authored by God.
  3. Yes, want to challenge me on things like the beginning of the Universe, instead of those boring biological entities?
  4. No problem. I am a physicist, but I have some basics of general science, including biology. And as you say, the real issue is common descent. Not darwinism. And honestly, I know no scientific explanation (darwinistic or not) that questions common descent.
  5. My evaluation? I am not a biologist, but I cannot exclude that new species can arise in a short time, given the necessary evolutionary pressure. After all, as the article mentioned, that already happened, namely when an asteroid inflicted the coup de grace to the dinosaurs 65 millions years ago. That was the time when our mammal ancestors (who were looking like little rodents) could leave their hole without the dangers of being ingested by some huge reptiles. It is plausible, for me, that such drastic changes can accelerate the course of evolution to create new species in just a few hundred thousands years, which is what evolutionary science considers "instantaneous". By the way, I do not see how that article supports Genesis in the slightest. Even if all those new species appeared "suddenly", that does not deny the existence of many many species before that. Species who simply disappeared and replaced by new ones through accelerated evolution. The article makes it quite clear, by mentioning that asteroid again. I have been a couple times in a Synagogue, but I do not remember anything about God creating new species replacing others by means of ice ages, accelerated evolution or asteroids. Fact is: no matter how much scientists deviate from classical gradualism (darwinism), the important property is always the same: common descent. No scientist I am aware of postulates the birth of life on this planet to have happened more that once. In other words: everybody has a parent, with the exception of that initial seed a few billions years ago we know nothing about. siegi
  6. The first article mentions that the last of such occurrences (short term appearances of different species) happened when an asteroid hit earth 65 millions years ago. Do you agree with that? Or do you agree only on the parts that confirm what you a-priori believe? Siegi
  7. siegi91

    The Ghostly Particle that Shouldn't Exist

    No physicist thinks that physics has everything figured out. Which is good news. At least I will not be unemployed anytime soon. sieglinde
  8. Yes, but all this dissent agrees that me and a tree have a common ancestor. And I believe that is the real contention, is it not? So, I am not sure what the point is, to rejoice. It is like rejoicing that Stalinism has been challenged by Leninism, because that vindicates anti-communism. Makes no logical sense, really. And what do you mean with speaking to my heart? You mean the blood pump in my chest? Or is that some allegory for the set of neurons in my brain responsible for emotional feelings? And I do not think for a moment that you are crazy. I like you a lot. You seem to be genuinely concerned with my eternal destiny, which is sweet. I never met any man that does. Sieglinde
  9. And that is the scientific dissent? Hearing voices? OK. I am not a Christian, but I am learning so much of it. Thank you. sieglinde
  10. With common origin I mean: you and a carrot have a common ancestor. The same with all biological beings on earth. Since all scientific (not ID) dissent from Darwinism subscribe to that (obviously, the chances of different independent origins of lives with so much genetic similarities is ridiculously small), I am not sure why creationists get all excited about that dissent. sieglinde
  11. Yes, there is some some scientific dissent from strict Darwinism. For instance, punctuated equilibrium deviates from canonical gradualism. However, they all strongly agree on one central thing: common origin. Is not darwinian common origin preferable to Christians? I am not a Christian, so I cannot really say. sieglinde
  12. I am not sure I understand. Do you think that things like cosmology are not science, either, because we cannot reproduce Universes in a lab? sieglinde
  13. How many of them are called Steve? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve
×