Evolution is Unscientific
- Thread starter SufiPhilosophy
- Start date
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Perfect peace. No beliefs about God and his redeeming representatives. No fear of death or hell. Follow 'dharma' and have fun.
Already redeemed by clear thought.
That is a big 'if', since there is no evidence for it. You will be afraid of death and hell in life and no everlasting life that you expected all the time.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Conversations have a habit of wandering around here...seems I was forewarned of that ages ago by a certain site administrator...I guess the topic has gone way past evolution now.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
I don't fear death. Today is a good day to die.
Seems to me we've already established your illogic and faith based beliefs many times in the past few weeks.
Amazing we don't have the PhD scientists you are looking for in a fmall aith based forum...shocking really eh?
Take your thesis to a science based forum...or any community college...get an education from them...here we will pray you see the light.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Nice, but if it is delayed, no problem.
Beliefs do not change easily. There has to be a reason. I have found none.
This crossed my path...
www.facebook.com
468K views · 1.2K comments | Why Did Natural Selection Take So Long to Develop? | Why Did Natural Selection Take So Long to Develop? | By StarTalk | Facebook
Why Did Natural Selection Take So Long to Develop?
www.facebook.com
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
It's a bit off topic but I would ask what it would take for such a atheist as yourself to believe in something greater like God. I'm just curious.
Yahweh kid
I am blessed!
Evolution = I agree, it is not scientific.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Oh, evolution is VERY scientific.Evolution = I agree, it is not scientific.
Science isn't Truth.
Science, all science, is an attempt at Truth, primarily using logic. Science is a form of Truth. But Science is not the be all and end all sum total of Truth, because parts of the universe are illogical.
Seems most is illogical till it has an explanation...
Earthquakes, thunder, lightning, the movement of the stars, bacteria, so many things we couldn't see, couldn't understand were illogical until they weren't.
Which parts do you still see as illogical?
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic...
I don't know what you find illogical about love and beauty but do feel those are the answer to the above.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Lol...now you know very well that there are things that are logical with the knowledge and information we have today...which were illogical to many in the past...the further we go back, the more you needed mystery and g!d to explain what folks saw as magic or divine.Arthur C Clarke.
Care to add the 3 Laws of Robotics by Isaac Asimov as well?
Very well...prove it. If the subject is logical, it should not be difficult at all.
I simply believe (not unlike others with unfounded unprovable beliefs) that science will make it all logical to future more educated beings.
I always thought of you as a more educated being than me...don't go and make that illogical.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
You appear to base your atheism on a great deal of unfounded faith.
Science, all science, is an attempt at Truth, primarily using logic. Science is a form of Truth. But Science is not the be all and end all sum total of Truth, because parts of the universe are illogical.
Love and beauty are not logical, that is why science cannot properly discuss these matters of experience.
Oh, but love is just chemicals in the brain...the exact same chemicals in the exact same places in the brain lit up under reverent prayer...i.e., G!d. If those chemicals in the brain *prove* love, they also prove G!d, unless one's research is duplicitous. Good luck using science to dissect beauty. The closest you will find is animal magnetism, a rather questionable sub-field at arm's length from psychology.
You made the statement as a matter of fact, as if any question is irrelevant. You used Clarke's quote in some effort to silence discussion in smug condescension. That's the problem with know-it-alls, they seldom do.
Last edited by a moderator:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
I was replying to Juan...specifically, directly, there was no implied generalization
Actually, my agnostism is based on diengenuos half truths by multiple preachers and sunday.school teachers and not any big bang or evolution theory.
Tis the reason I am not an atheist...while I respect scientists and their upgrading of books as new information presents itself, that is also why I am a member of Unity...a church who upgrades understandings as new information presents itself and why I am decidedly not a Bible thumper that insists on a literal translation despite new information which has dribbled in over the past 2 millenia.
I absolutely agree science is an attempt at truth...as was (I believe) the Bible 2k years ago. I liked Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence from such thinking, an upgraded fospels Jeffersonian Bible...but that was a quarter century ago...we should have had multiple new edits since and would live to see the completed one.
I think there are a lot of good teachings in the good book and in the teachings of Jesus (the reason I was a Sunday school teacher) I disagree with most of the way the 3,000 versions of Christianity teach the teachings of Jesus.
Me think I am not alone there...got 3k denominations that can't agree with me or each other...
That does not make me feel alone or concerned.