Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bradskii said:
40.png
Aloysium:
I will agree that science, and not just scientism, is being misappropriated by atheists who appear to, of necessity, by their belief system, or personal intent to deny the existence of God…
Click to expand...
Paaarp. Straw man. Science and evolution do not deny God.
Click to expand...
The argument I am making may appear to be off-topic. It’s not meant to derail it but to address some of the difficulties encountered in proposing that there are allternative ways in which to view the evidence. If there is a preponderance of atheists in the biological sciences, one will likely meet a possibly unconscious, but not necessarily so, bias against a version that argues against the ToE. One reason to think it is true therefore would be that it is better to follow the crowd and not risk disapprobation.
 
Aloysium said:
40.png
Bradskii:
what I reject is the nonsensical proposal (put forward by the ID movement) is that God brought creaures into this world fully formed.
Click to expand...
It’s a claim I have made, explaining why I choose to believe, invoking basic scientific facts, that the first of any kind of being, such as humankind, would have appeared fully formed.
Click to expand...
I missed the bit where you acknowledged that you were wrong in stating that I have closed my mind to the proposal that God could be the ultimate cause of existence.

Can we get that acknowledgement?
 
Yes, they do. No God/gods are required in a belief system called science.
 
Bradskii said:
At last…the Intelligent Designer, despite what the DI says, according to Buffalo, is God.

See why you lost at Dover? The DI wouldn’t admit it. But if you had been a witness, you would have been pressed and questioned until you actually came up with that statement. Which would have immediately een followed by:

No more questions, your honour.
Click to expand...
I said the ultimate or supreme designer is God. I have posted this position numerous times, so it is no surprise to anyone, when I have my philosophical hat on. In the science arena we are sticking to science, right? I think it was @rossum or you who put God into the discussion and I responded.

And why it was a setup. Once the attorney asked a religious, not scientific question and got the admission I believe in God, like more than 80% of Americans do, I gotcha. Here we see the judge shows his own bias and ignored what the science says itself.

Yet Ken Miller can believe in God but not suffer those same consequences because he supports evo. The Judge was chicken.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
Yes, they do. No God/gods are required in a belief system called science.
Click to expand...
You need to know how to work the forum, Ed. So I know to which comment you are refering. But who is going to disagree with you?

But you seem not to realise that science doesn’t deny God. Do you understand that statement? I’m really not sure that you do, so I will make the statement again and ask if you agree with it:

Does science deny God?

A simple yes or no is required.
 
buffalo said:
And why it was a setup. Once the attorney asked a religious, not scientific question and got the admission I believe in God, like more than 80% of Americans do, I gotcha.
Click to expand...
I do believe the judge was/is a Christian, so your argument, such as it is, is nonsnsical. A belief in God by anyone associated in the case was irrelevant. it was decided on whether ID promototed a religious viewpoint.

And as we have written proof (by you) that it does…case closed.
 
No it doesn’t Buffalo, at least not when properly undertaken.

It neither excludes nor promotes God as an explanation. All science does is study the natural world as we are able to observe it, and make determinations about its structure and laws. Anything beyond that is outside the scope of science, and a misapplication of gained knowledge.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
40.png
Bradskii:
Does science deny God?
Click to expand...
I’ll answer - No.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I agree
buffalo said:
40.png
ProdglArchitect:
I’ll answer - No.
Click to expand...
I will answer it excludes God from its search for true knowledge.
Click to expand...
The divine is excluded from science. That’s why you told us that there are two aspects of ID (stop laughing at the back!). One being the scientific aspect for an ID, which, I have heard, may be little green men. And one where there is a philosophical aspcect of ID. Which, as has been agreed, can only involve God.

We can’t seem to get God our from either side of the equation. What’s a man to do?
 
Bradskii said:
One being the scientific aspect for an ID, which, I have heard, may be little green men. And one where there is a philosophical aspcect of ID. Which, as has been agreed, can only involve God.

We can’t seem to get God our from either side of the equation. What’s a man to do?
Click to expand...
Who the designer is is always philosophical. It can include little green men and/or God.

The science is the science. Is there evidence that something is designed?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, not it doesn’t. Saying it does doesn’t make it any more true.

Science is the study of natural processes and how they interrelate. It has nothing to say about the ultimate cause of anything, only the mechanics of the processes.

Plenty of people try to use science as a way to exclude God from the process, but that statement is not scientific, it’s a philosophical position.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
One being the scientific aspect for an ID, which, I have heard, may be little green men. And one where there is a philosophical aspcect of ID. Which, as has been agreed, can only involve God.

We can’t seem to get God our from either side of the equation. What’s a man to do?
Click to expand...
Who the designer is is philosophical. It can include little green men and/or God.
Click to expand...
And on that farcical point I will take my leave. I have to travel between A and a long distance to B so I will leave you to it.

This is a lot of fun…
 
Your stating that you do not have a closed mind enters into my forming the impression I have, but is only one factor. I stand by what I said, but life is change, and my opinion about what I can hardly glimpse, that which is in a person’s heart, is not carved in stone. I have the log in my eye to worry about, and I shouldn’t concern myself about the splitters in others, anyway. I wouldn’t fret about what I think of you; it’s my issue after all.
 
Last edited:
Yes. It is not concerned with any God/gods. Neutral is not an option. But you knew that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top