Has science falsified macroevolution?

[kalt]

And here is the pattern: go to Christian site, rail against them for believing in god, try to teach them something about evolution, be amazed when some deny it, rinse, repeat.

Burn forever for not believing? Do you think that’s unreasonable? The mission of the Catholic Church is to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ, a person who did exist according to non-Christian writers of the period. The Catholic Church exists even after Christians were put to death. In the Bible, we are told that if Christ’s ressurection did not in fact happen then our faith is in vain.

I understand your give me evidence, I’ll accept nothing else approach. I heard it over 30 years ago: “Show me God. If you can show me God I might believe in Him.”

There is a cloak in existence today. Secretary of State Clinton viewed it recently. She asked who painted it. The Church declares it was not painted by human hands. It’s been examined by experts. It’s the tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

I study the history of technology. Do you know what Samuel Morse said after sending the first message on the telegraph he invented? “What hath God wrought?”

You may think that that’s only a nice sentiment or just quaint. However, I can point to many inventors who believed in God and it obviously did not hinder their work. So faith and reason can coexist.

Peace,
Ed

As a Catholic, you aren’t required to “believe in” evolution, as some creationists put it. But evolution and God are not opposed, since God and science aren’t opposed.

If science proves your interpretation of a creation story wrong, adjust your interpretation.

As far as I know, the Catholic Church doesn’t promote a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[kalt]

I can see the videos were lost on you. Way of the master, i HOPE your on the wind up.

Oh and for the record athiests dont have any specific beliefs about the cosmos, they just dont accept the existence of magic sky daddys.

Why are you visitiing this Catholic site? What is your goal?

If your debate tactic is to claim that your opponents intellectually inferior, perhaps you should have someone edit your posts for you. I don’t often comment on another poster’s spelling or grammar–my own is far from perfect–but since you have claimed superior intellect, you’ve left your posts open to review.

your - you’re

dont - don’t

There are more serious errors in your post, but this is one simple thing that you can correct without much effort.

Your debate tactic, btw, is invalid. Debate the topic. Ridiculing the other person for believing in Jesus, I think, is against the forum rules.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Yep its limited to reality.

This is not a scientific statement. It’s a philosophical one.

The only scientific statement one could make about science’s ability is that science stops where physical matter stops.

Science might be inherently materialistic (as it should be), but that doesn’t mean science actually validates materialism as a philosophy. Science merely uses a materialistic axiom as a foundation upon which to test the physical world. It’s by this axiom that science bounds itself.

You should know this considering that you claim to have been a science undergrad.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

This is not a scientific statement. It’s a philosophical one.

The only scientific statement one could make about science’s ability is that science stops where physical matter stops.

Science might be inherently materialistic (as it should be), but that doesn’t mean science actually validates materialism as a philosophy. Science merely uses a materialistic axiom as a foundation upon which to test the physical world. It’s by this axiom that science bounds itself.

You should know this considering that you claim to have been a science undergrad.

I was a biology undergrad, i have my BSC.

Anyway, i have never cliamed science does any of those things.

My stance is simple. If you want to hypothesis the existance of some thing immaterial then provide evidence.

 

[kalt]

I was a biology undergrad, i have my BSC.

Anyway, i have never cliamed science does any of those things.

My stance is simple. If you want to hypothesis the existance of some thing immaterial then provide evidence.

As we discussed earlier, Science can’t prove God, because it can’t disprove God. You say you have a BS degree? Then this very basic concept should be understandable to you. Why do you insist on mixing science and religion? And why are you here on this particular forum? Why a Catholic site?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Why are you visitiing this Catholic site? What is your goal?

If your debate tactic is to claim that your opponents intellectually inferior, perhaps you should have someone edit your posts for you. I don’t often comment on another poster’s spelling or grammar–my own is far from perfect–but since you have claimed superior intellect, you’ve left your posts open to review.

your - you’re

dont - don’t

There are more serious errors in your post, but this is one simple thing that you can correct without much effort.

Your debate tactic, btw, is invalid. Debate the topic. Ridiculing the other person for believing in Jesus, I think, is against the forum rules.

I have never claimed to be superior. I have claimed that the creationsits i have met on this site lack a fundemental understanding of basic sceince, especially evolution.

Im sorry but if scientifically illiterate people are going to denounce evolution, when they don’t even understand the first thing about it. Coupled with the fact that what they are claiming to expose is either not proposed by the theory (random chance/accidents), or has nothing to do with the theory (Abiogenesis/Big Bang). Then yes, i feel these people are open to ridicule.

It is impossilbe to debate the topic with such people because they don’t understand it. Could one debate maths with someone that couldn’t even complete the ten X table?

Oh and i’ve never claimed to be an english grad, actually im dyslexic. However im not arguing with english grads that “don’t” should be changed to “dont” because im to lazy to add the '. If i was, i’d quite rightly be open to ridicule .

Oh and i like talking about religion. It’s a very important part of human history and it fascinates me how many people, in certain countries, still have religious beliefs.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

As we discussed earlier, Science can’t prove God, because it can’t disprove God. You say you have a BS degree? Then this very basic concept should be understandable to you. Why do you insist on mixing science and religion? And why are you here on this particular forum? Why a Catholic site?

I still don’t understand what you mean “Science can’t prove God, because it can’t disprove God?”

The default state for belief is non belief. Note non, not dis.

I dont have a belief that a pink rabbit with three heads lives on sirius. By your logic “Science can’t prove pink rabbit with three heads lives on sirius, because it can’t disprove pink rabbit with three heads lives on sirius”. Does this now mean you believe a pink rabbit with three heads lives on sirius?

 

[Eleve]

No. It means that if he/she had such a belief, it would be untestable and unprovable by science. Just like his/her belief in God.

 

[buffalo]

I have never claimed to be superior. I have claimed that the creationsits i have met on this site lack a fundemental understanding of basic sceince, especially evolution.

Oh and i like talking about religion. It’s a very important part of human history and it fascinates me how many people, in certain countries, still have religious beliefs.

and I claim that the atheists I meet do not know history, metaphysics or philosophy.

Why do you think that is? Because they are open to God in their heart. Even in my own arguments I respond intellectually because that is the nature of these threads. People experience God all the time. Our own arrogance prevents many of us from either experiencing God at all or shallowly. Atheists should ask themselves the question - why can I not experience God. They should look to the people who do for the answer.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

and I claim that the atheists I meet do not know history, metaphysics or philosophy.

Why do you think that is? Because they are open to God in their heart. Even in my own arguments I respond intellectually because that is the nature of these threads. People experience God all the time. Our own arrogance prevents many of us from either experiencing God at all or shallowly. Atheists should ask themselves the question - why can I not experience God. They should look to the people who do for the answer.

But history, metaphysics and philosophy are irrelevant when it comes to evolution in comparison to evolutionary biology.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

No. It means that if he/she had such a belief, it would be untestable and unprovable by science. Just like his/her belief in God.

It means that if he/she had such a belief, it would be untestable and unprovable. - I totally agree. Which is why i dont believe in any of mans god claims.

 

[buffalo]

But history, metaphysics and philosophy are irrelevant when it comes to evolution in comparison to evolutionary biology.

No - evolutionism is a philosophy.

In any case you limit yourself what you can add to the search for knowledge.

I ask - why on earth would anyone supposedly intelligent intentionally limit themselves so?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

No - evolutionism is a philosophy.

In any case you limit yourself what you can add to the search for knowledge.

I ask - why on earth would anyone supposedly intelligent intentionally limit themselves so?

We limit ourselfs to what we can reasonably prove (i know science doesnt “prove”), for this is the best method we have for discerning truth and understanding the universe. Like i have said many many times, NOTHING comes close to sceince when it comes to increasing knowledge, and understanding the universe. On this front religion isn’t fit to lack science’s boots. We can put that to the test if you like?

 

[Eleve]

It means that if he/she had such a belief, it would be untestable and unprovable. - I totally agree. Which is why i dont believe in any of mans god claims.

Good for you. But you can’t expect everyone to apply methodical naturalism to every aspect of knowledge. That’s scientism, which is pretty broadly rejected as a philosophy, and for good reason.

 

[buffalo]

We limit ourselfs to what we can reasonably prove (i know science doesnt “prove”), for this is the best method we have for discerning truth and understanding the universe. Like i have said many many times, NOTHING comes close to sceince when it comes increasing knowledge and understanding the universe. On this front religion isn’t fit to lack science’s boots. We can put that to the test if you like?

Without Revelation we have zero guidance on how to discern truth.

Science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. It is limited by our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time. Only a fraction of reality can be empirically tested.

Empirical data still has to be reasoned by flawed humans with worldviews.

Science includes all pursuit of knowledge. So searching, observing, gathering data are all good. Science also includes the Divine Science (theology).

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Without Revelation we have zero guidance on how to discern truth.

Science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. It is limited by our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time. Only a fraction of reality can be empirically tested.

Empirical data still has to be reasoned by flawed humans with worldviews.

Science includes all pursuit of knowledge. So searching, observing, gathering data are all good. Science also includes the Divine Science (theology).

“Without Revelation we have zero guidance on how to discern truth.” I dont agree. Again i will pit the results of science against religion any day of the week.

“Science also includes the Divine Science (theology).” No.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Good for you. But you can’t expect everyone to apply methodical naturalism to every aspect of knowledge. That’s scientism, which is pretty broadly rejected as a philosophy, and for good reason.

I dont, and i dont, but i do expect people to be able to justify thier beliefs.

 

[blortog]

No - evolutionism is a philosophy.

In any case you limit yourself what you can add to the search for knowledge.

I ask - why on earth would anyone supposedly intelligent intentionally limit themselves so?

Your wrong. Evolutionism is a misguided term coined by creationists to confuse people that don’t actually understand what evolution is in an attempt to make people think that creationism has a shred of validity. Evolution is a scientific theory not a philosophy.

 

[buffalo]

“Without Revelation we have zero guidance on how to discern truth.” I dont agree. Again i will pit the results of science against religion any day of the week.

“Science also includes the Divine Science (theology).” No.

You do worship science. It is obvious.

No?

 

[buffalo]

Your wrong. Evolutionism is a misguided term coined by creationists to confuse people that don’t actually understand what evolution is in an attempt to make people think that creationism has a shred of validity. Evolution is a scientific theory not a philosophy.

When you stray outside the bounds of science by concluding materialism you are into philosophy.

So tell me know what does evolution believe about God?