C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
LOL no. The academic arena sees to it that “faith” is not part of the equation. You might want to research the “scientific method”, then you will understand why “faith” is NOT required.
- Status
R
reggieM
Guest
Faith is part of your equation because you accept claims without having tested them.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
ARRRGGGHHHH!
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
I don’t need to test them, thats the whole point of the scientific method. The peers test them, and they PUBLISH their findings!
The results of the scientific method are there for us all to see! Cars, Planes, PC’s, Phones, Rockets, Trains, Hospitals, Electricity, MP3s… need i go on? Do you take it on “faith” when you get on a train its going to move?
R
reggieM
Guest
And you believe them on faith alone.
Yes, show me a lab-test on the evolution of human consciousness.
Yes – it’s a question of trust. I haven’t tested the train myself, but by faith (which I put in the company owning and operating the train) I get on it. You’ve chosen an activity that has a much higher probability of success than does evolutionary theory.
You accept a lot of scientific claims on faith alone – and many of those are later proven false. But you continue to put your faith in future claims without even questioning it.
That’s the sign of a true believer. Or, in some cases, a gullible and naive person.
B
buffalo
Guest
Plain foolishness and moronic.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Your now arguing semantics because you don’t understand the different meanings of faith, which i have been trying to explain to you the whole thread.
- confidence or trust in a person or thing: the train
- belief that is not based on proof: your god
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Name one contemporary source than mentions Jesus?Plain foolishness and moronic.
And again this has nothing to do with the fact you deny evolution due to ignorance.
B
buffalo
Guest
Would you accept the Talmud?
Oh please - ignorance. After so many posts here I have to now be educated on evolution.
There have been better debaters here than you.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
I dare say there have, but then were not having a debate. If you would like to discuss the evidence for evolution i would more than willing to. What i don’t want to see is cut and paste jobs from answering genesis, which 99% of the time fails to include any references, of references to an unreferenced paper.Would you accept the Talmud?
Oh please - ignorance. After so many posts here I have to now be educated on evolution.
There have been better debaters here than you.
Ok evolution. The first piece of evidence i would like to present is unique character combinations. Every animal alive falls into a nested hierarchy. For example there is not ONE mammal that does not have a spine, a jaw, 4 limbs, 2 eyes, lungs, is bilaterally symmetrical, and so on.
If we are part of some grand design, then why was god limited when creating mammals? Why could he not make ONE mammal with say gills? Like a whale for example, why did he not give whales gills. These are NOT similarities, they are unique character combinations which CANT be broken. If you break them then you have falsified evolution.
So why does the whale, contain ALL the features of a mammal? Why was god bound when designing the whale? Why could be not give them gills? Why do they swim up and down the why (the way a mammal runs), rather than side to side (like a fish)? Why do they have hair?
Common designer has NO way to explain this other then god made the whale that way to make it look like it had evolved. Evolution explains this PERFECTLY.
A
avflf
Guest
Sorry, I didn’t think you were that sensitive. It was not a statement, it was a personal opinion based on my inhability to comprehend someone who professes a belief in the God of the Bible but does not accept the very book that has introduced him to that particular deity to be true.
A
avflf
Guest
I don’t think the posts have anything to do with the condition of your head, it’s just the way it came to be. I think I am fairly well versed in the theory of evolution as presented by Darwin and subsequently modified by successive “scholars” to be able to decide if it makes sense or not. I note in another of your posts that you are not prepared to accept any arguments from Answers in Genesis website but you are quick to point out to your information source as Talk Origins. Let me give you another anti evolutionist site for your perusal. I recommend the Humour section
ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/topics.htm
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
If that post was anything to go by, then no, your not. So i take it your now retracting the preposterous statement that evolution is “pure chance”?
Also i didn’t say i wouldn’t accept arguments from answering genesis. I said i didn’t want cut and past jobs. I am happy to accept any EMPIRICAL evidence, or peer reviewed papers. Thing is, you wont find any either of those on answering genesis or that site you linked
.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Which chemicals? Are there different chemicals that stimulate love for one’s wife versus love for a great beer? How about love for one’s children? Different chemical? All present at one time giving different forms of love?
How does science remove God from the equation if God is outside of nature?
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
Who says that one cannot accept science and the bible? You? What is your authority to say that? The Church (the ultimate authority) does not agree with you.
So tell me, avflf, why should I listen to anything you have to say on the subject?
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Here one paper on the subject
journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/bps/article/PIIS0006322307004829/abstract
As for loving a beer that is not the same meaning, very much like the different meaning of “faith” though out this thread.
I have never claimed science removed/disproved god. You claim god is out side nature, but you don’t have a single shred of evidence to back the claim up. I am an agnostic atheist.
Agnostic because we have no evidence/knowledge regarding the existence of a god.
Atheist because that lack of evidence means i reject the claim a god exists.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
IMO evolution is devistaing to christianity, and heres why. Christianity claims we are made in the image of “god”. I fail to see how one can accept evolution yet still believe to be made in the image of some sort of god.
At what point does the guidance accur and how? We know its not through mutations, for they are random. We know its not through natural selection, for that is down to reproductive success. You could claim genetic drift however there is zero evidence to support such a claim, and it would say very little for a gods methods.
Evolution has no need nor place for the supernatural, and IMO it totally destroys the notion we are made in a gods image.
O
Orogeny
Guest
The Christian concept of “made in the image of God” understands that a human ic composed of body and soul. The body evolved, the soul is created and is a supernatural essence. Evolution no more devastates Christianity than it proves that God doesn’t exist.
Funny that you bring this up. I don’t believe that they are random to God.
Which is controlled by God.
There is zero scientific evidence directly supporting the existence of God because God doesn’t have to fit into a natural process. What you see as a natural process is the result of an action by God. You just see the natural part because that is all we can see.
Of course evolution has no need for supernatual explainations any more than physical chemistry or quantum physics does. However, that just means that we live in a natural universe that follows natural laws, laws set in place by our Creator.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
So how does that differ from love of one’s spouse? Quite honestly, the idea that what they were imaging was love is an extension of what they want to see. There is clearly a maternal response by mothers of other species when hearing the sound of their off-spring. That doesn’t mean love, it means that they have a response to their children. It is a survival instinct.
Really? So there is a different chemical for that? Yet we (or at least some of us) love beer. Before he died, I loved my dog. Completely different than the love I have for my wife, completely different than the love I have for my sons, completely different than the love of my favorite beer. Different chemicals?
I have no scientific evidence, but I disagree with you about no evidence. You have already acknowledged that science cannot lead you to the ultimate truth. I agree with you. The next step is to ask what can. That leads us to faith.
So you can drop the agnostic part and just claim to be an athiest. You have faith that the lack of scientific evidence is sufficient to dismiss the existence of God since, as you know, the lack of evidence for something does not mean that that something doesn’t exist. So you take it on faith that the lack of evidence means that God doesn’t exist. That is as much a statement of faith as I can give for my faith in God.
Peace
Tim
R
reggieM
Guest
That does seem to be the mainstream view of evolution. Certainly, Dawkins, Dennett, Myers, Lewontin, Harris, Pinker, and Coyne all teach that.
Darwinism puts humanity on the same level as worms - with whom we “share a common heritage”, and this necessarily implies that humans have no more worth than any other animal. Many Darwinists will deny this, when challenged – because they don’t want to accept the direct implications of their theory.
But if Darwinian evolution is true, as even many Catholics (theistic evolutionists) claim then mankind does not have a higher moral or intrinsic value than does bacteria or even non-living matter. Life has no meaning, purpose or worth and there are no “self-evident rights” that come from evolution.
But Darwinists pretend that none of this is true. They deny their own theory in daily life. They cling to values, cry at funerals, claim to find purpose and meaning and argue for what they think is “good” and "right’ – but this is all a direct contradiction and they will twist themselves in knots to justify their “theistic-styled” moral attitude and metaphysical approach to the universe.
So, actually – I appreciate this poster (I would recommend a more distinctive username though) because he represents mainstream Darwinism.
This goes so far that he believes his love for his wife and children (assuming he has such) can be measured scientifically in a lab, since it is nothing more than a chemical reaction.
That’s an excellent example of the inhuman aspect of Darwinism. Although in fairness, the Darwin-follower would argue that evolution shows us that being “truly human” has no more meaning than being “truly a worm”. It is through Catholic teaching about being made in the image of God that we have elevated human life.
- Status