Has science falsified macroevolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Orogeny
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It isn’t obvious to everyone.

So you are actual (what you are right now) with potential (what you night be in the future)

Agreed?
Your obviously trying to make some kind of point here, I say you get to it

Supposedly I am actual right now and hopefully will still be in the future, go on
 
Your obviously trying to make some kind of point here, I say you get to it

Supposedly I am actual right now and hopefully will still be in the future, go on
Actuality is complete existence. Potentiality is a lesser form of existence.

We know you exist and we know there is a thing as existence. Existence itself is actual and is its own essence.
 
Some people may call God by different names. As long as the same attributes are understood.

[34](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/34.htm’)😉 The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.10
Right. But showing that those attributes apply to the First Cause is not as simple as showing that there is a First Cause.
 
Actuality is complete existence. Potentiality is a lesser form of existence.

We know you exist and we know there is a thing as existence. Existence itself is actual and is its own essence.
Existence is a noun, and it govern predicate adjective such as “actual.” That does not make it a “thing.”
 
Actuality is complete existence. Potentiality is a lesser form of existence.

We know you exist and we know there is a thing as existence. Existence itself is actual and is its own essence.
Dude where are you going with this?
 
Actuality is complete existence. Potentiality is a lesser form of existence.

We know you exist and we know there is a thing as existence. Existence itself is actual and is its own essence.
I’m thinking this is way above the pay grade…
 
I never said nothing else exists, I simply meant that I don’t believe in mythologies or superstitions, I see all religions as equal in their lack of reason. If there was reason to believe there was a God or Gods I would, but since there is no evidence it’s all just mumbo jumbo from a bunch of pretenders to me.
Exactly
 
And just as I feared, this perfectly good scientific thread has been hijacked and morphed into a philosophical one.

Thanks Charles Darwin and Buffalo for killing it.

See you around.
 
Morals do not come from the bible. The bible is morally disgusting.
Morals also do not come from science.

I agree that many of the morals espoused in the Bible are morally disgusting to us 21st century moral agents (granted I take a more nuanced view of the Bible than many of the posters here on CAF). Thank God for the Holy Spirit who delivers us into the fullness of truth! 😛
 
Yes, macro-evolution has been falsified by scientist for philosophical reasons. The 6,000 years theory has not much to do with macro-evolution and I am not even sure if its Biblical since days in God’s eyes is not the same as days in human’s eyes.

.
The Bible does not say the Earth is 6,000 yrs old. The 6,000yr old earth thing comes from a Catholic Bishop or cardinal. I can’t think of his name or when he did this, or even why.
What he did was add up the ages of the people in the bible and other time lines counting back from Jesus (obviously) And he came up with the timeline 6,000yrs old. He did not mean for it to be taken seriously. Or preached as fact. It was just something he did for what ever reason. The trouble is People took him seriously and well the rest is history.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top