**Most of the “phony” evolutionists are on the side of evolution. Faking finds like the “Piltdown man” which was disproven in 1953 but is still in some ‘science’ textbooks today(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man), to try to prove their theories, to try to gain credibility & also to continue to get the millions of $$$$ for research.
contd - some Christians might wish to compromise with evolutionists,but they do not! The editor of American Atheist,1988 wrote " when the theory of evolution was advanced.that was the date that the Judeo-Christian religion began the decline in which it now finds itself in the West.The two theories are in point-blank contradiction one to the other.Any scientists,any educators,any religious persons who state to you that there is no conflict simply want to hang on to both worlds because they have not been able to divest themselves of the infantile belief system which was programmed into them when they were children.They want a foot in each camp.Religion is their emotional security blanket. Science is facing a world of reality which - in the final analysis - they cannot face.They are too cowardly to see religion should be abandoned so they stand there one foot in and one foot out[Daylight No.23] -more later - twinc
Your sources are lying to you. The only reason Piltdown would be included in a modern textbook would be as an example of fraud. As you say yourself, the fraud was exposed in 1953. Do you have any example of a textbook published since then that uses Piltdown as support for evolution?
That is not evolution, which is part of biology, but cosmology, which is part of physics. There are two usual solutions:* the universe as a whole has zero energy and so is essentially nothing, and nothing can come from nothing.
Exactly how can a bare assertion be considered a credible answer? Don’t you understand this yet - saying “God did it” is no answer at all.
I don’t accept it because there is no evidence that it is true. Nor does it explain anything. It adds no value, has no provenance, answers no meaningful questions
That’s a puerile argument. As I’m sure you’re aware, Watson and Crick documented their methods, experiments and results. That’s how we know not only how they achieved their results, but also that they did achieve their results. You have no proof that God did anything, let alone how he did it. Or why. Or when.
If you, as Catholics, don’t want your blissful ignorance upset, then the answer is simple: ban atheists, or anybody non-Catholic. If you can’t handle the level of scrutiny to which your beliefs are being subjected here; if it offends you that other people don’t blindly believe the irrational dogma that you do, then lobby the mods and I’m sure that they will prevent rational intelligent people from coming along and pointing out the gaping flaws in your arguments.
This is patently false, at least, if you are attempting to provide a generalisation to people other than your self. Surely you realise that millions of people do find that the idea of God gives them value and meaning in their lives (not sure what “provenance” is). What is the point of this provocative hyperbole, when it is plainly false?
No, it is an absolutely true statement. Saying “God did it” offers no explanation of anything. It doesn’t describe how, why, when or anything else. It’s merely a call to stop asking questions, you don’t need to know, calm down, God loves you, don’t worry, everything will be fine, nothing to see here.
Those who say “Matter did it” offers no explanation of how or why matter exists or anything else “for that matter”. But of course mind matters far more than matter - both now and in the long run! After all matter has a relatively short run… I wonder why atheists are incapable of indoctrination…
“Watson and Crick discovered DNA” adds meaningfully to our mental model of the universe, because we know what DNA is, and if we don’t know who Watson and Crick are, we at least know they discovered DNA. We also know a bit about what that discovery process must have been like—e.g., we know that it entailed controlled experiments understood in light of years of formal education.
“Evolution did it” is not a meaningful explanation unless it accounts for:
(1) and (3) are already well-understood. (5) is understood to some extent. However, none of them are required for “evolution” to be meaningful.
I find it rather odd, that some atheists are continually crying about indoctrination of religious people, yet it is the same atheists who are continually trotting out the tired old arguments that most theists who frequent such message boards have seen hundreds of times. Yes, we get it, you believe religious people are indoctrinated, can’t think for themselves, follow blindly what they are told, need emotional re-assurance when faced with the big bad scary world etc. How about you actually try to argue for such conclusions instead of merely asserting them?
Although slightly longer than the mind, which doesn’t really start to kick in until a few months into gestation, then dies along with the body (matter).