Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="newusername" data-source="post: 6155749" data-attributes="member: 562064">As a last word, I also want to re-iterate the most important point here:Certainly we do not know everything about the universe.&nbsp; Certainly we do not have a step-by-step explanation of how everything that is here now came to be.&nbsp; That is simply impossible, especially considering that it wasn&#039;t until the Age of Enlightenment that science really began to take off.&nbsp; Perhaps evolution is wrong, or some aspects of it are incorrect (such as the argument of punctuated equilibrium vs gradualism).&nbsp; If that is the case, then science will change its explanations to match our understanding accordingly.However, if the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis theory is wrong (despite the incredible amount of evidence for common ancestry), that does not prove that god exists.&nbsp; That only proves that evolution is wrong.&nbsp; When we don&#039;t know the answer to questions, it is not appropriate to make up an entity called &quot;god&quot; for which we have no direct evidence and claim that, because we don&#039;t know the answer to be otherwise, it could only be this conceptual entity.&nbsp; Rather, we should appropriately acknowledge that we do not know the answer.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="newusername, post: 6155749, member: 562064"] As a last word, I also want to re-iterate the most important point here: Certainly we do not know everything about the universe. Certainly we do not have a step-by-step explanation of how everything that is here now came to be. That is simply impossible, especially considering that it wasn't until the Age of Enlightenment that science really began to take off. Perhaps evolution is wrong, or some aspects of it are incorrect (such as the argument of punctuated equilibrium vs gradualism). If that is the case, then science will change its explanations to match our understanding accordingly. However, if the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis theory is wrong (despite the incredible amount of evidence for common ancestry), that does not prove that god exists. That only proves that evolution is wrong. When we don't know the answer to questions, it is not appropriate to make up an entity called "god" for which we have no direct evidence and claim that, because we don't know the answer to be otherwise, it could only be this conceptual entity. Rather, we should appropriately acknowledge that we do not know the answer. [/QUOTE]

Verification