Has science falsified macroevolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Orogeny
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Charles_Darwin said:
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?
Click to expand...
I mentioned that you’d reject the implications of your theory, and here you show that. You’re twisting yourself in knots to preserve the meaning of morality, beauty and the specialness of human beings. These things are all destroyed by Darwinism – but you go against the implications of your own theory. You appeal to “emotions” as if this has some meaning. It’s nothing but chemical reactions.

Your life is not more precious than microbes, houseflys, mosquitos, lawn grubs, the malaria virus, wasps or any plant which you destroy and eat. But you cover this up and think about “animals” that you won’t eat – like furry cows or fluffy chickens. This clear and obvious evidence that you haven’t considered the implications.

Darwinism claims that you are not any more precious than a dandelion. You are not morally superior to any animals (who attack each other for play, eat their young and commit all kinds of bloody atrocities). But then you claim to be “disgusted” by moral teachings – although Darwinism can impose no morals and absolutely cannot morally forbid any human action imaginable.

Your personal views are radically inconsistent with Darwinism. That is the usual situation.
 
reggieM said:
I mentioned that you’d reject the implications of your theory, and here you show that. You’re twisting yourself in knots to preserve the meaning of morality, beauty and the specialness of human beings. These things are all destroyed by Darwinism – but you go against the implications of your own theory. You appeal to “emotions” as if this has some meaning. It’s nothing but chemical reactions.

Your life is not more precious than microbes, houseflys, mosquitos, lawn grubs, the malaria virus, wasps or any plant which you destroy and eat. But you cover this up and think about “animals” that you won’t eat – like furry cows or fluffy chickens. This clear and obvious evidence that you haven’t considered the implications.

Darwinism claims that you are not any more precious than a dandelion. You are not morally superior to any animals (who attack each other for play, eat their young and commit all kinds of bloody atrocities). But then you claim to be “disgusted” by moral teachings – although Darwinism can impose no morals and absolutely cannot morally forbid any human action imaginable.

Your personal views are radically inconsistent with Darwinism. That is the usual situation.
Click to expand...
What on earth is Darwinism?

They have meaning to me because i give them meaning. The reason i don’t eat animals is because they are self aware.

You seem to like strawman arguments. Is that the best you can do? Strawmans?

So you get you morals from the bible eh? When the last time you stoned you kids, or raped someone then married them? Great morals there eh. See i girl i like and want to keep so i rape her, wow how moral! I only wish i could live up to the high moral standards of your great book.
 
Charles_Darwin said:
What on earth is Darwinism?

They have meaning to me because i give them meaning. The reason i don’t eat animals is because they are self aware.

You seem to like strawman arguments. Is that the best you can do? Strawmans?

So you get you morals from the bible eh? When the last time you stoned you kids, or raped someone then married them? Great morals there eh. See i girl i like and want to keep so i rape her, wow how moral! I only wish i could live up to the high moral standards of your great book.
Click to expand...
You should know then that as Catholics we rely on Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. It is like a three legged stool. Take anyone away and the stool topples. But I will bet you didn’t know that.

Since you are deficient of a good understanding of Catholicism I will try to bring you quickly up to speed. Catholicism is a proposition. It is a hard proposition. The Church is a hospital for sinners. No one in the Church is free from sin. The Church provides spiritual healing. The failure of men does not invalidate the message.

Who is the message itself? Jesus.
 
buffalo said:
You should know then that as Catholics we rely on Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. It is like a three legged stool. Take anyone away and the stool topples. But I will bet you didn’t know that.

Since you are deficient of a good understanding of Catholicism I will try to bring you quickly up to speed. Catholicism is a proposition. It is a hard proposition. The Church is a hospital for sinners. No one in the Church is free from sin. The Church provides spiritual healing. The failure of men does not invalidate the message.

Who is the message itself? Jesus.
Click to expand...
I know enough about catholicism. So if you rely on scripture you still havent explained why you dont stone your kids? Or if rape is immoral?

Here’s the problem i have, i care whether or not my beliefs are true.
 
Charles_Darwin said:
I know enough about catholicism. So if you rely on scripture you still havent explained why you dont stone your kids? Or if rape is immoral?

Here’s the problem i have, i care whether or not my beliefs are true.
Click to expand...
How would you know?
 
Charles_Darwin said:
What on earth is Darwinism?
Click to expand...
The ideology supported by evolutionary theory.
They have meaning to me because i give them meaning. The reason i don’t eat animals is because they are self aware.
Click to expand...
Thus, you create a category of “specialness” based on a biological function. You impose this on the evolutionary landscape. So, this makes humans “more precious” – and thus, you’ve contradicted and refuted yourself (and denied the fundamentals of Darwinian theory).
When the last time you stoned you kids, or raped someone then married them? Great morals there eh. See i girl i like and want to keep so i rape her, wow how moral!
Click to expand...
You’re outraged by what evolution, physical laws and mutations have produced. You reject the consequences of your own theory – just as I predicted. Evolution does not condemn any of the actions you mentioned – natural laws (in the Darwinian world) produce, support and justify all of those actions. If it benefits survival, they’re all good. Nature provides no moral condemnations or obligations – it merely “is”. Things develop and adapt.

But you, instead, are outraged. The contradiction is obvious. Except, you can’t see it.
 
Charles_Darwin said:
Because i have studied it.
Click to expand...
You’ve studied the evidence and rejected it in favor of a materialistic answer, for which you have no evidence. If you studied the evidence in favor of God, then you can’t claim that there is none. I’d be interested to know how you weighed and evaluated the evidence in favor of God’s existence – but that may take us too far off topic.
 
reggieM said:
You’ve studied the evidence and rejected it in favor of a materialistic answer, for which you have no evidence. If you studied the evidence in favor of God, then you can’t claim that there is none. I’d be interested to know how you weighed and evaluated the evidence in favor of God’s existence – but that may take us too far off topic.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen no empirical evidence in favour gods existance, if you could provide some i’d be happy to review it.
 
reggieM said:
The ideology supported by evolutionary theory.

Thus, you create a category of “specialness” based on a biological function. You impose this on the evolutionary landscape. So, this makes humans “more precious” – and thus, you’ve contradicted and refuted yourself (and denied the fundamentals of Darwinian theory).

You’re outraged by what evolution, physical laws and mutations have produced. You reject the consequences of your own theory – just as I predicted. Evolution does not condemn any of the actions you mentioned – natural laws (in the Darwinian world) produce, support and justify all of those actions. If it benefits survival, they’re all good. Nature provides no moral condemnations or obligations – it merely “is”. Things develop and adapt.

But you, instead, are outraged. The contradiction is obvious. Except, you can’t see it.
Click to expand...
Evolution says nothing other then to explain the origin of species.

Where have i ever claimed humans to be “more special”? And evolution says NOTHING about how “special” animals are. Evolution explains the origin of species! NO MORE, NO LESS!
 
buffalo said:
You:Here’s the problem i have, i care whether or not my beliefs are true.

How would you know?

You do not know Catholicism at all. If you want to learn read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Know my beliefs are true? By following reason, logic and evidence. By forming no beliefs until i have sufficient evidence to do so, then by testing my beliefs and being open to change.

See that the MAJOR difference, my beliefs are always subject to change. If new evidence comes along i have no problem changing my belief, and taking on board the new evidence. When you get locked up in dogma, then evidence becomes irrelevant, hence way almost everyone in this board seems to have no problem ignoring it.

Lets talk evidence, whats your best piece of empirical evidence for the existence of a god? Please not empirical, I’m not interested in hearsay accounts. There not even good enough to get someone convicted of shop lifting, let alone make me accept the existence of a supernatural dictator in the sky.
 
Charles_Darwin said:
Lets talk evidence, whats your best piece of empirical evidence for the existence of a god? Please not empirical, I’m not interested in hearsay accounts. There not even good enough to get someone convicted of shop lifting, let alone make me accept the existence of a supernatural dictator in the sky.
Click to expand...
Bogus Alert!
 
buffalo said:
Bogus Alert!
Click to expand...
Ok scratch the dictator.

Whats your best piece of empirical evidence for the existence of a god? Please not empirical, I’m not interested in hearsay accounts. There not even good enough to get someone convicted of shop lifting, let alone make me accept the existence of a supernatural entity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top