Has science falsified macroevolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Orogeny
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
latin_rite said:
You’re 100% correct. Thats why i Worship Jesus.
Click to expand...
Is jesus not god? Are they not the same thing? Do you accpet the laws? Do you accept the ten commandments? Is the bible an accurate representation of “god” when he comes to earth as jesus, but not when hes in the form of yahweh?
 
latin_rite said:
The Bible does not say the Earth is 6,000 yrs old. The 6,000yr old earth thing comes from a Catholic Bishop or cardinal. I can’t think of his name or when he did this, or even why.
Click to expand...
Actually James Ussher was a bishop in the church of Ireland, a protestant church in Ireland that was established by the anglican church. He was a protestant. He was actually pretty anti-Catholic.

Peace

Tim
 
Eleve said:
The same thing gravity and calculus believe about God:

Nothing.
Click to expand...
👍 👍 👍

And I’ve been trying to tell Chuck that evolution theory says nothing about God, but his ears seem to be lagging a little behind the rest of his evolved body. 😉
 
Eleve said:
Christians make quite a few more claims about God than that he is the First Cause.

(The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the first cause in that parody, by the way.)
Click to expand...
We’ve alread disproved the Spaghetti Moster as first cause. Please come up with another cutsie god name.
 
dixieagle said:
Yes, really. Science is science. People may attempt to hijack evolutionary theory for their own purposes; the theory itself is utterly neutral.
Click to expand...
Yes!!! Is there a jumping up and down icon?

And the claim that there aren’t any “missing links” is bogus. If we show them a transitional fossil between this and that, they will say that there are no transitional fossils because there aren’t any fossils that fit between the 1st species and the fossil, and the fossil and the 2nd species. And they will argue this forever, because you can infinitely divide the difference between the first species and the second (at least on paper). You start at the first, and divide the difference between that and the 2nd to come up with a proposed transitional fossil. Then you divide the difference between the fossil and the 2nd species to get a 2nd fossil. You then divide the difference between the 2nd fossil and the 2nd species to get a 3rd transitional fossil. And so on forever, continually dividing the smallest differences in half again.

The least people need to know about evolution is that it is a fact, that transitional fossils do exist, and that evolution neither proves nor disproves God, because it says nothing about God. It is science not religion.

Those who come her to promote evolution fact discredit their own argument when they say that evolution theory is good science but then claim that evolution disproves God.
Evolution theory says nothing about God.
 
kalt said:
Yes!!! Is there a jumping up and down icon?

And the claim that there aren’t any “missing links” is bogus. If we show them a transitional fossil between this and that, they will say that there are no transitional fossils because there aren’t any fossils that fit between the 1st species and the fossil, and the fossil and the 2nd species. And they will argue this forever, because you can infinitely divide the difference between the first species and the second (at least on paper). You start at the first, and divide the difference between that and the 2nd to come up with a proposed transitional fossil. Then you divide the difference between the fossil and the 2nd species to get a 2nd fossil. You then divide the difference between the 2nd fossil and the 2nd species to get a 3rd transitional fossil. And so on forever, continually dividing the smallest differences in half again.

The least people need to know about evolution is that it is a fact, that transitional fossils do exist, and that evolution neither proves nor disproves God, because it says nothing about God. It is science not religion.

Those who come her to promote evolution fact discredit their own argument when they say that evolution theory is good science but then claim that evolution disproves God.
Evolution theory says nothing about God.
Click to expand...
Evolution says nothing about the existence of a god. But it does disporve certain ideas about specific gods.

For example it totally exposes the story of genesis as that of utter nonsense.

It gets rid of the idea we are made in any sort of physical image.

It eliminates the need for the evidentially challenged “soul”.
 
kalt said:
👍 👍 👍

And I’ve been trying to tell Chuck that evolution theory says nothing about God, but his ears seem to be lagging a little behind the rest of his evolved body. 😉
Click to expand...
The problem is you dont seem to be able to see the difference betweem claim A.
  • there is a god (deist). Which evolution says nothing about.
and claim B
  • there is a god, he made a man from dirt and women from a mans rib. He came to earth and god a woman pregnant with out intercourse. He give us all a “soul”, athough there is not ONE bit of evidence to support it. We are made in his image, which contradicts evolution.
I could go on and on…
 
Orogeny said:
Actually James Ussher was a bishop in the church of Ireland, a protestant church in Ireland that was established by the anglican church. He was a protestant. He was actually pretty anti-Catholic.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
and Sungenis showed he erred in his calculations…
 
Charles_Darwin said:
Is jesus not god? Are they not the same thing? Do you accpet the laws? Do you accept the ten commandments? Is the bible an accurate representation of “god” when he comes to earth as jesus, but not when hes in the form of yahweh?
Click to expand...
You’re correct. Jesus is God. And yes i follow all his laws, as best i can. I was agreeing with you on the “i’d rather follow Science than a man made god” statement. For you see God/ Jesus isn’t man made. Being Catholic i get the best of both worlds. I get to enjoy guilt free many of the things science as brought us. Plus i also get to follow God.
Charles_Darwin said:
Sorry lack isn’t the correct world. Immoral is better. God is immoral.
Click to expand...
And how is God “immoral” ?
Orogeny said:
Actually James Ussher was a bishop in the church of Ireland, a protestant church in Ireland that was established by the anglican church. He was a protestant. He was actually pretty anti-Catholic.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Thanks for the correction Orgeny. I don’t know why i thought it was a catholic Bishop/cardinal. Same as i don’t know why atheist seem to bring up the 6,000 yr old earth “theroy” as though it’s some sort of bedrock of beliefs or even that its suggested to be mentioned in the bible. You would think that with all their “superior intellect” and unique powers of free thinking they would know this?
Buffalo. He would not be able to invoke thereligous debate even if he wanted too. as the nazis weren’t religous friendly.
Funny how The bible says we are made from the dirt and shall return to dirt. Especially when you see how many elements that man and “dirt share” and how the bible says that we shall return to those elements when we die. Not bad for Superstitious sheep herders.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by buffalo
OK - this might be easier.
Click to expand...
A Brain in a Vat
Click to expand...
Utter nonsense
Click to expand...
Actaully, it is nonsense. That article tries to prove gods existence by using natural reason which was introduced by Thomas Aquinas. The words have changed but the idea behind it is the same. Natural Reason is not proof of anything, it is a philisophy that tries to “prove” gods existance by observing the world around us. However none of this is proof of anything and if you want to think it is then that’s fine but don’t try to pass it off as any kind of proof.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top