O
Orogeny
Guest
Ok, so they are not stupid. They are just vain and lying about what they actually think.
That’s better.
Peace
Tim
- Status
That’s better.
Peace
Tim
B
buffalo
Guest
There were more witnesses seeing Jesus die and then reappear than for witnessing the age of the earth or the origins of man. Yet you place more faith in this.
A
avflf
Guest
Not consciously lying but, and this is the sad part, unwilling to see the weakness in their argument or to openly debate the issue with proponents of creation. Evolutionists tend to believe that “real” scientists are only those that subscribe to this theory and all those opposing, or simply questioning, evolution are not “real” scientists, regardless of their academic qualifications or the logic of their argument. I am sure many evolutionist have had second thoughts about their belief that all has come about as the result to chance. Catholic scientists may accept that there was a “creation” somewhere along the line only because they’re still attached to Catholic circles and feel secure in their midst, but the way they present their acceptance of Darwinism is not that different from atheistic evolutionists. It gives the impression they add God to the equation only because they are required to do so to remain in the association.Ok, so they are not stupid. They are just vain and lying about what they actually think.
That’s better.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
Well, unless you are a scientist, I don’t know how you can make such a claim with a straight face, assuming that you are. Heck, even if you are a scientist, I don’t know how you can possibly be serious.
First off, if one has a scientific disagreement with evolution, that person has the obligation to publish and defend their position. Science doesn’t have a problem with that. What science does have a problem with is coming to an un-defensible conclusion that is contrary to all the evidence and insisting that everyone must accept that position.
Do you understand why? It actually has nothing to do with ideology, although that may be the case with some scientists. It has everything to do with the evidence. There is a reason evolution is so widely accepted and it has everything to do with the fact that all the evidence points to the theory, not to creationism. In fact, no evidence points to creationism. None. A perfect example is this thread. Notice thay you and others spend a huge amount of time trying to create doubt about evolution. How about a thread that provides scientific evidence of a 6 day creation 6,000-10,000 years ago? Why do we never have that to discuss? I know why that is, but I am curious if you do.
Is chance the biggest obstacle you have? What is chance to God?
That is because the science is so solid that to do otherwise would be a sign of willful ignorance of the data. The fact that “athiestic evolutionists” accept something does not make it false.
That is your personal opinion and is based on your prefered version of the faith. You should be careful with statements like that. I, for one, take offense to such a suggestion.It gives the impression they add God to the equation only because they are required to do so to remain in the association.
Peace
Tim
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
No i have ZERO faith. I accept empirical evidence, the scientific method, peer review, which i have explained is the single greatest method we have for discerning truth. You on the other have myth and “faith”.
Faith = believing something when there is no good reason to believe it.
Oh and outside your bible there are zero accounts of Jesus dying on the cross, not to mention the utter absurdity of the whole story.
B
buffalo
Guest
You have faith whether you admit it or not. Your faith rests on the shoulders of other men who give you information and you believe it on faith. You were not there at the beginning. There is nothing you know that did not come from those before you.
Catholics know faith as opening ones heart and mind to God (the truth). We know Him from our experiences. Man cannot desire what He cannot not know.
In addition the Bible is an honored and historical document.
By having faith in science you have painted yourself in a corner. By sciences own definition it cannot speak to the supernatural. A priori you set forth on a quest for knowledge that limits your search.
In addition as humans we are limited by our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time.
Do you really believe that is all there is?
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Chance? How can you come on here and challenge established theories that have withstood 150 years of scrutiny from the greatest minds in the world, when its clear you have absolutely zero understand of the subject?
O
Orogeny
Guest
You have faith that empirical evidence is all there is. Is it really the best method for discerning the truth? Yes, if you are talking about a natural thing. How about love? Can you test for it? Can you show a gene that causes the feeling and expression of love?
Science is great for finding the truth about nature. It does not have the ability to answer all questions.
Peace
Tim
A
avflf
Guest
If not chance then what? That’s what you believe anyway: no intelligence, then pure chance. You must also be of the opinion that an explosion in a printer’s shop would result in the coming together of all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
And it has not withstood 150 years of scrutiny for it has been modified, on many quarters, to such an extent that any resemblance to the original is pure coincidence
O
organdy
Guest
Evolution is not about chance, it’s a process by environmental pressures “select” certain traits, because those individuals who possess advantageous traits have more offspring. It’s not a random process at all.
Saying that Evolutionary Theory today has only coincidental resemblance to Darwin’s original writings is absurd - the major components remain the same - but that fact that the theory has changed over time is a point in its favor. That’s the difference between science and dogma - as we learn more, our understanding of the process is refined.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Science is results based, i can see the results therefore it is NOT faith based, I can also repeat the experiments for myself if i like.
As for the supernatural (Not that i believe in if for 1 second). If we cant know anything about it, or test for it, either way you look at it it’s irrelevant.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Yes, you can test for love. Its an emotion response caused by chemicals, and the brain. These can be viewed and understood.
Also i don’t have faith the empirical evidence is there. I can carry out the tests for myself if i like. Oh and i have never claimed absolute truth, i am talking about understand the universe to the best of our abilities. When it comes to this NOTHING comes close to science.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
My head hurts when i read posts like this, how can you question evolution when you have worse than no understanding of it. I have honestly met 10 years olds that have a exponentially greater understanding of the subject that you seem to have. I don’t mean that as a insult, but its the truth. I just want to understand how WAY of the track you are with you understanding of evolution.
B
buffalo
Guest
Please repeat evolution for me.
So you are sure there is nothing more than just what we can sense?
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
No of course not. I have already explained i dont claim absolute truth. The point is if we cant test for it and we cant sense it, then anything we claim about it is unfounded specuation and does nothing to futher our understanding of the universe.
B
buffalo
Guest
I agree. Man alone cannot come to a complete understanding of the universe. So we come up with various ideas. Who knows which ones are really right. That is where Revelation comes in. Revelation is sort of the tie breaker.
In your post you express exasperation that other posters do not understand science, how it works or evolution. I express the same exasperation with most atheists who do not know history and do not understand philosophy and metaphysics.
Anyone who seriously is interested in the truth will be sure to include them.
R
reggieM
Guest
What tests of evolutionary theory have you carried out thus far?
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
I studied biology at uni, so quite a few.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
I quite like history actually, and you can extend philosophy to include anything. However historically the case for Jesus is not overly strong. And the case for miracles is non existent. If you are going to accept hearsay accounts, then you will have to accept every other religious text as well as UFO encounters etc etc.
R
reggieM
Guest
All of the rest of the claims you accept by faith.I studied biology at uni, so quite a few.
- Status