Has science falsified macroevolution?

[avflf]

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.

Careful there friend, you might offend Orogeny

 

[buffalo]

Can you re-create the sun? How about a supernova?

Peace

Tim

That wasn’t the point. He said evolution was repeatable.

 

[reggieM]

Careful there friend, you might offend Orogeny

That is not my intention at all.

I think his response is that even if Darwinism is 100% true and accurate, that says nothing about God at all.

My reply to that is that it rejects the Design Argument, which is necessary, in my view.

 

[Orogeny]

That wasn’t the point. He said evolution was repeatable.

Well, specifically he said experiments were repeatable. The idea that evolution has to be repeatable to be real is no different than requiring the creation of a new sun or supernova for them to be real.

Peace

Tim

 

[avflf]

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

Evolution is diametrically opposed to Biblical teaching, though not to your Church’s teachings. You believe

The Christian concept of “made in the image of God” understands that a human is composed of body and soul. The body evolved, the soul is created and is a supernatural essence.

, but where do you get the concept of “soul” from? From the Church, which got it from the Bible. And what is the “soul”? In most passages in Scripture “soul” and “body” is interchangeable. To me an Atheistic believer in evolution rings truer than someone who calls him/herself a Christian/Catholic evolutionist. Don’t get offended, it’s my own view and, as you said, you don’t have to listen to me.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

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

Well your going to have to define soul, for i have no idea what a soul is supposed to be.

The mutations are random, there is no getting away from it. If they were guided we would expect to see patterns, We don’t. What we see is random mutations.

How exactly does god control natural selection?

I would need evidence that these laws have been set in place by a creator.

 

[buffalo]

Well, specifically he said experiments were repeatable. The idea that evolution has to be repeatable to be real is no different than requiring the creation of a new sun or supernova for them to be real.

Peace

Tim

In context he was claiming that he had no faith. Then he used the point science is repeatable. I asked “can you repeat evolution?” Evolution is not empirical. If it was what we we have to talk about?

In any case, I agree, one time events can be studied. Miracles are another one time event that can be studied.

 

[buffalo]

Well your going to have to define soul, for i have no idea what a soul is supposed to be.

The mutations are random, there is no getting away from it. If they were guided we would expect to see patterns, We don’t. What we see is random mutations.

How exactly does god control natural selection?

I would need evidence that these laws have been set in place by a creator.

It’s time once again to play the: The Richard Dawkins Mutation Challenge

 

[Orogeny]

Well your going to have to define soul, for i have no idea what a soul is supposed to be.

Really? None at all?

A soul is the spiritual part of a human being, the animating part that gives life to us. All living things have souls. Human souls are different because they are immortal and created in the image of God.

The mutations are random, there is no getting away from it. If they were guided we would expect to see patterns, We don’t. What we see is random mutations.

Yes, to us they are random. To God they are not.

How exactly does god control natural selection?

The same way He controls the Big Bang. He created and He controls. He allows the mutation and He allows the reproduction of the mutations. He controls the environment. He controls the “chance” deaths that could eliminate the mutation or the timely meeting of a male and female that leads to reproduction. He controls it all.

I would need evidence that these laws have been set in place by a creator.

Where did the laws come from, in your opinion?

Peace

Tim

 

[Charles_Darwin]

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

These emotions are linked to the brain, hence when we damage the brain we can also inter fear with the emotions.

However even if we knew nothing of that it wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference. Its simple reasoning. I am not in the position where i have to disprove anything, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You are starting with the conclusion, and that is illogical. We see the same reasoning later in the post.

You claim i 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.”. That is not my position.

Agnosticism deals with knowledge.

Atheism deals with believe.

So the default position is anything to lack belief, note lack, not DISbelieve. For example are there tiny 3 headed green rabbits orbiting Rigel?

As a default i have no belief in the green bunnys. We then research the claim. However we don’t have the capabilities to do so. Therefore we have no knowledge either way this is where the agnosticism come in. It deals with the knowledge. So i am still in the same position with my lack of belief. This is where the atheism comes in, i lack belief in the tiny rabbits.

I am not claiming there are defiantly no rabbits, i am not claiming i can prove there are no rabbits, i just lack belief in the them because there is no evidence to suggest they exist, and i don’t have a default position where i have to believe everything we can prove to be incorrect.

I am in the exact same position with regard to the god claims.

 

[Orogeny]

Evolution is diametrically opposed to Biblical teaching, though not to your Church’s teachings.

Right. And since my Church is the one which was established by Christ and gave us the Bible, I’ll accept her teachings.

You believe , but where do you get the concept of “soul” from? From the Church, which got it from the Bible. And what is the “soul”? In most passages in Scripture “soul” and “body” is interchangeable.

And in parts, it is clear that the soul is separate from the body. See Matthew 10:28. But I don’t disagree that the body and soul are intimately linked.

To me an Atheistic believer in evolution rings truer than someone who calls him/herself a Christian/Catholic evolutionist. Don’t get offended, it’s my own view and, as you said, you don’t have to listen to me.

I don’t care that you believe that. That is not offensive in the least. I do get offended, however, when someone calls me a liar, especially in the context of my faith.

Peace

Tim

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Really? None at all?

A soul is the spiritual part of a human being, the animating part that gives life to us. All living things have souls. Human souls are different because they are immortal and created in the image of God.

Yes, to us they are random. To God they are not.The same way He controls the Big Bang. He created and He controls. He allows the mutation and He allows the reproduction of the mutations. He controls the environment. He controls the “chance” deaths that could eliminate the mutation or the timely meeting of a male and female that leads to reproduction. He controls it all.Where did the laws come from, in your opinion?

Peace

Tim

I would need some evidence to back up your claim of a soul, i would also be interested in an action the “soul” is capable of that our brains arent. And why is the “soul” reliant on a brain? Could we not just forget this unfounded notion and concentrate on the brain.

Something is either random or it is not, they are mathematically random, therefore they ARE random.

How does he control the “chance” deaths? Or the timely meeting of males and females? Are you suggesting he controls our where abouts?

I am not sure what you mean by come from, the laws are observable constants through our universe. We don’t know much about before the inflation of space time. I guess the honest answer is i don’t know. There is nothing wrong with i don’t know, and it DOES NOT mean “god did it”. Again we see you start with the conclusion.

 

[buffalo]

I would need some evidence to back up your claim of a soul, i would also be interested in an action the “soul” is capable of that our brains arent. And why is the “soul” reliant on a brain? Could we not just forget this unfounded notion and concentrate on the brain.

Something is either random or it is not, they are mathematically random, therefore they ARE random.

How does he control the “chance” deaths? Or the timely meeting of males and females? Are you suggesting he controls our where abouts?

I am not sure what you mean by come from, the laws are observable constants through our universe. We don’t know much about before the inflation of space time. I guess the honest answer is i don’t know. There is nothing wrong with i don’t know, and it DOES NOT mean “god did it”. Again we see you start with the conclusion.

Physicists believe that at the quantum level the universe is porous and that is where God acts.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

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.

I respectfully disagree. Understanding the origins of these feelings does not make them any less powerful. As for morals you couldn’t be further off the mark. I feel the EXACT same emotions are you with the EXACT same intensity, we just don’t agree on there origins. That however has no bearing on the feeling itself.

I have morals because i feel empathy for my fellow man, not because I’m scared some magic man will punish me. Also i am disgusted by the many of the moral teachings of the bible and your god.

I also have great respect for ALL life. For i understand we are all related. I don’t think my life is any more precious than any animals, just because i have a bigger brain. Hence why i don’t eat meat.

Does understanding why the sun sets make the sunset any less beautiful?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Physicists believe that at the quantum level the universe is porous and that is where God acts.

Evidence?

 

[reggieM]

I am not sure what you mean by come from, the laws are observable constants through our universe. We don’t know much about before the inflation of space time. I guess the honest answer is i don’t know. There is nothing wrong with i don’t know, and it DOES NOT mean “god did it”.

Again, it’s an indication of your faith in something for which you have no evidence or knowledge. You state that you don’t know. But you concluded that God could not have done it also. You have no evidence for a materialistic origin of the physical laws – but you accept that in favor of God. That’s an excellent example of atheistic blind-faith.

 

[Orogeny]

These emotions are linked to the brain, hence when we damage the brain we can also inter fear with the emotions.

Why call it love? Is it possible if we damage the brain of a mother bear that she will no longer exhibit the maternal protective behavior that mother bears are known for?

However even if we knew nothing of that it wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference. Its simple reasoning. I am not in the position where i have to disprove anything, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You are starting with the conclusion, and that is illogical. We see the same reasoning later in the post.

No, I don’t have to prove anything. Faith isn’t like that.

You claim i 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.”. That is not my position.

Sorry. Just going on what you wrote.

Agnosticism deals with knowledge.

Atheism deals with believe.

Well, you use the terms differently that I do or than I have seen before, but so be it. If you want to call yourself an agnostic athiest, I will let you.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

I would need some evidence to back up your claim of a soul, i would also be interested in an action the “soul” is capable of that our brains arent. And why is the “soul” reliant on a brain? Could we not just forget this unfounded notion and concentrate on the brain.

What makes the brain work?

Something is either random or it is not, they are mathematically random, therefore they ARE random.

To us.

How does he control the “chance” deaths? Or the timely meeting of males and females? Are you suggesting he controls our where abouts?

I am suggesting that He knows what we will do. Nothing is random if you know the outcome in advance. Since God is outside of time, He does know what will happen before we do.

I am not sure what you mean by come from, the laws are observable constants through our universe. We don’t know much about before the inflation of space time. I guess the honest answer is i don’t know. There is nothing wrong with i don’t know, and it DOES NOT mean “god did it”. Again we see you start with the conclusion.

I agree that “I don’t know” is an acceptable answer and doesn’t mean “God did it”. I use that answer myself when I don’t know.

I think that you should put some thought in it if you are going to use the laws of nature as an argument against God.

Peace

Tim

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Again, it’s an indication of your faith in something for which you have no evidence or knowledge. You state that you don’t know. But you concluded that God could not have done it also. You have no evidence for a materialistic origin of the physical laws – but you accept that in favor of God. That’s an excellent example of atheistic blind-faith.

Err no i didn’t say god did not do it, that would be no better than god did it. I said I DONT KNOW. And i don’t know does not mean god did it. This is an excellent example of the god of the gaps argument and illogical reasoning, as i have already explained the default position is to lack belief until we have evidence. We don’t have any evidence therefore i still lack belief. So one again my answer is… i don’t know!

What we don’t do is every time we don’t know the answer to something try to squeeze a god in to it.

 

[Orogeny]

I respectfully disagree. Understanding the origins of these feelings does not make them any less powerful. As for morals you couldn’t be further off the mark. I feel the EXACT same emotions are you with the EXACT same intensity, we just don’t agree on there origins. That however has no bearing on the feeling itself.

Of course you feel the same emotions. You have a soul (even if you deny its existence).

Peace

Tim