Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

[Uriel1]

Uriel1:

Dawkins wrote, 2005; Humanity’s best estimate of the probability of divine creation dropped steeply in 1859 when The Origin of Species was published, and it has declined steadily during the subsequent decades, as evolution consolidated itself from plausible theory in the nineteenth century to established fact today

So that’s it? You don’t like Dawkins? You are not alone. Meanwhile, do you agree that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was scientific?

No, no, no. Dawkins is but the leader of the gang who claim Darwins proposition of evolution to be a fact, denying God. Rossum goes on to state that he made himself (philosophically), but that parents made him (scientifically). But David said before them in Ps 14:1 “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.”

 

[Bradskii]

… yet some on here don’t understand that “evolution” is being used to claim "there is no God?

Wow. Not only will you not back up your claims that there are those on this forum who are using evolution to deny God but you actually repeat them.

On the assumption that those who are active in these threads read all posts, then everyone will know that you will not, because you cannot, back up what you say.

 

[Uriel1]

If someone on a Catholic site admits to being a Buddhist, which is completely contrary to the message of Jesus, and believes there is no God, and that he “made himself” but bangs on that evolution (which is a mere supposition) is a fact, repeatedly stating to many that “their creationist sources are lying to them” my case is made. It is further made by you, @Bradski, a dialectical materialist, being on this site at all.

Some great minds got this better, for instance Max Planck (1858 – 1947), founder of quantum physics, Nobel Prize 1918, said,
“Nothing prevents us, and the momentum of our knowledge requires it… to interrelate the order of the universe and the God of religion. For the believer, God stands at the beginning of their speeches; for the physicist, at the end”.

 

[Bradskii]

If someone on a Catholic site admits to being a Buddhist, which is completely contrary to the message of Jesus, and believes there is no God, and that he “made himself” but bangs on that evolution (which is a mere supposition) is a fact, repeatedly stating to many that “their creationist sources are lying to them” my case is made. It is further made by you, @Bradski, a dialectical materialist, being on this site at all.

Some great minds got this better, for instance Max Planck (1858 – 1947), founder of quantum physics, Nobel Prize 1918, said,
“Nothing prevents us, and the momentum of our knowledge requires it… to interrelate the order of the universe and the God of religion. For the believer, God stands at the beginning of their speeches; for the physicist, at the end”.

Not even close my friend. Neither rossum or myself have ever stated, claimed, intimated or suggested that evolution denies the existence of God. In fact I will state that emphatically now:

‘Evolution does not deny the existence of God’.

So you have failed utterly to indicate one single post in all the thousands that have been made on this subject that will back up your fallacious, unsubstantiable and nonsensical claims.

So I think we should draw this to a close to avoid you suffering further embarrassment. That should free up more time to allkw you to increase your knowledge of common scientific principles and vocabulary.

But if you make the claim again without backing it up, we can dance again.

And skip the pseudo impressive terms like ‘dialectical’. We are all dialectics in a forum scenario.

 

[Uriel1]

The adjective dialectical is not a term, but a descriptor of your status as a materialist, opposed to God. You are an atheist, and as Eddington said, "None of the inventors of atheism was a naturalist. All of them were very mediocre philosophers."

You deny God; Rossum denies God, and you both argue that evolution is a fact; on a Catholic site ?

Q E D

 

[PickyPicky]

And skip the pseudo impressive terms like ‘dialectical’. We are all dialectics in a forum scenario

I don’t know if you’re a Marxist or not, @Bradskii, but I think that must have been Uriel’s insinuation.

 

[Bradskii]

The adjective dialectical is not a term, but a descriptor of your status as a materialist, opposed to God. You are an atheist, and as Eddington said, "None of the inventors of atheism was a naturalist. All of them were very mediocre philosophers."

You deny God; Rossum denies God, and you both argue that evolution is a fact; on a Catholic site ?

Q E D

In the first instance I am not sure you know the meaning of the term ‘dialectical’. It’s a buzz word that I find people automatically attach to terms like materialist without concerning themselves of the actual meaning of the word.

In the second (rossum can speak for himself), I have never denied that God may exist, I am not denying it now and I never will deny it.

I find it insulting that you could claim as much so will you please retract it?

 

[Gorgias]

You deny God; Rossum denies God, and you both argue that evolution is a fact; on a Catholic site ?

Q E D

Actually, that doesn’t prove that “disbelief in God” + “belief in evolution” = “evolution proves God’s lack of existence”. In fact, it doesn’t even demonstrate the claim you’re making.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

And skip the pseudo impressive terms like ‘dialectical’. We are all dialectics in a forum scenario

I don’t know if you’re a Marxist or not, @Bradskii, but I think that must have been Uriel’s insinuation.

More a socialist (lapsed). As they say, If you’re not a socialist before you’re twenty-five, you have no heart; if you are a socialist after twenty-five, you have no head.

 

[PickyPicky]

Oh dear, I have no heart. Always been a wishy washy liberal.

 

[Bradskii]

Oh dear, I have no heart. Always been a wishy washy liberal.

I’m still way left of centre. But that’s because the centre has moved way over there somewhere.

 

[rossum]

If someone on a Catholic site admits to being a Buddhist,

I am.

which is completely contrary to the message of Jesus

Your knowledge of Buddhism is insufficient here. Jesus and the Buddha agreed on many things, so your “completely” is obviously incorrect:

• You shall not kill.
• You shall not steal.
• You shall not commit adultery.
• You shall not bear false witness.
• Love your neighbour as yourself.

There are obvious differences, but there are also similarities.

and believes there is no God

God singular is indeed not my belief. Gods plural comes closer. Do I need to quote from Chapter One of the Saddharmapundarika again?

and that he “ made himself ”

The me I am today is the product of my accumulated karma over many many lifetimes. It has nothing at all to do with evolution. My being Buddhist has nothing at all to do with whether or not Darwin’s theory is scientific.

but bangs on that evolution (which is a mere supposition) is a fact,

Evolution is both a fact and a theory:

• Evolution-as-fact: the overall genome of an interbreeding population changes over time.
• Evolution-as-theory: the overall genome of an interbreeding population changes over time because…

If you do not understand the distinction between the two, then you need to learn more about science, because this distinction applies to many things other than evolution. For example:

• Gravity-as-fact: things fall down.
• Gravity-as-theory: things fall down because they follow geodesics in the space-time manifold.

rossum

 

[Uriel1]

Uriel1:

The adjective dialectical is not a term, but a descriptor of your status as a materialist, opposed to God. You are an atheist, and as Eddington said, "None of the inventors of atheism was a naturalist. All of them were very mediocre philosophers."

You deny God; Rossum denies God, and you both argue that evolution is a fact; on a Catholic site ?

Q E D

In the first instance I am not sure you know the meaning of the term ‘dialectical’. It’s a buzz word that I find people automatically attach to terms like materialist without concerning themselves of the actual meaning of the word.

In the second (rossum can speak for himself), I have never denied that God may exist, I am not denying it now and I never will deny it.

I find it insulting that you could claim as much so will you please retract it?

What nonsense; if you believe God may exist then you are not an “atheist” which is precisely how you define yourself in your profile - see below

Then again, as Eddington said, "None of the inventors of atheism was a naturalist. All of them were very mediocre philosophers. "
The word you seek is agnostic, and we’ll be happy if you convert

Bradskii​

• Message
• 107 posts in topic

Australia

Posted 11 mins ago​

Joined Sep 9, '17​

Read 11d (3d recently)​

Religion: Atheist

 

[Bradskii]

What nonsense; if you believe God may exist then you are not an “atheist” which is precisely how you define yourself in your profile…

I don’t give two cents for what you think I should call myself. But I do most definitely care about you telling lies about what you think my personal opinions are.

I have made my position abundantly clear and you are in no doubt about it. In fact I have specifically repeated it. You are accusing me of lying and I am asking you to retract it.

This is the second time I am asking and I won’t ask a third time.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It is true that rossum does hold a view contrary to many of the beliefs of Christians, there is not evidence that rossum is relying on evolution to arrive at that view. Remember, your point was that people on this forum are using evolution to justify a non-belief in the Christian God. So citing rossum does not prove your point.

 

[Uriel1]

You said,

Evolution is both a fact and a theory:

• Evolution-as-fact: the overall genome of an interbreeding population changes over time.
• Evolution-as-theory: the overall genome of an interbreeding population changes over time because…

If you do not understand the distinction between the two, then you need to learn more about science, because this distinction applies to many things other than evolution.

This post on a Catholic site is in direct contravention to Humani Generis 5, “If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.”

So who is correct rossum; you or Pius X11 ?

 

[edwest]

They aren’t denying the existence of God, but when the Biology textbook is given as the whole story, then God’s creative work is left out by default. Yes, I know science is supposed to be silent about this but people like Richard Dawkins do appear on TV and deny God and Genesis. And Sam Harris has written some sharp words against religion. But does anyone point out to them: “Gentlemen, please do not use your positions to argue against religion or advocate its destruction.”? I think if either one were to appear here and argue their anti-Bible, anti-religion ideas, they would not be received well.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You said,

rossum:

Evolution is both a fact and a theory:

• Evolution-as-fact: the overall genome of an interbreeding population changes over time.
• Evolution-as-theory: the overall genome of an interbreeding population changes over time because…

If you do not understand the distinction between the two, then you need to learn more about science, because this distinction applies to many things other than evolution.

This post on a Catholic site is in direct contravention to Humani Generis 5, “If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.”

So who is correct rossum; you or Pius X11 ?

rossum is correct. Pius XII was wrong.

 

[o_mlly]

Do you have to be the voice of conscience Bradskii?

Not to worry, William. You’ve just been snarksiied.

Snarkskii : ˈsnärk/ skē/

verb : snarskii ; past tense: snarskiied

1. 1. To disapprove of someone or something without facts or arguments and with only sarcasm.

Don’t take him too seriously, nobody else does.

 

[edwest]

Then Pope Benedict was wrong as well? I don’t think so.