Evolution My ToE

[ImmortalFlame]

Most of the Atheists (not everyone) only use scientific evidence as their proves of that they are right, Those who study or cultivate religion or possible creation theory in a spiritual way, will start to understand that te existence is more than only the physical realm, and it is here where the trouble starts since a non-physical realm is a today impossible to measure with scientific equipment, then they claim that believers in creation or in religious views must be wrong.

What you have just done is actually a very good example of what I am talking about.

Can you quote a single poster on this forum who asserts that religious views "must be wrong" because they can't be scientifically measured?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Comments like you made now have no value to answer. None of us can know if Jesus ever met a wild boar. so the answer is nobody can say yes or no.

But does THE BIBLE say that Jesus did? Does THE BIBLE only contain a couple of pages, exclusively detailing Jesus having an amorous encounter with a boar?

Again, the claims is that this is what THE BIBLE says. True or not?

 

[Spirit of Light]

That is simply false. There are standards when dealing with certain areas of thought. In the sciences one uses scientific evidence. The use and acceptance of this has nothing to do with one's religious views. If one cannot deal with that then it is simply best not to discuss that which is above and beyond a person. And this is not an unfair demand. The concept of scientific evidence is very easy to understand and is very fair. It keeps dishonest people from saying "there is no evidence" when there is. Creationists seem to know that. They run away from the concept as if it were Satan himself.

Maybe they do not see science as the true answer? Because time and time again science have to go back to rewrite their theory or they learn that whoops there was more to it than we first could record with our instruments. So science is not a solid answer either. A lot of science rely on instruments made by mankind, but instruments can only measure what they are intended to find, so not a complete truth finder

 

[Spirit of Light]

What you have just done is actually a very good example of what I am talking about.

Can you quote a single poster on this forum who asserts that religious views "must be wrong" because they can't be scientifically measured?

The basis for the answer is not only from this thread, it is based out of what is seen everywhere.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The basis for the answer is not only from this thread, it is based out of what is seen everywhere.

Can you quote a single example on this forum of people asserting that because religious claims cannot be scientifically tested, they "must be wrong"?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Can you quote a single example on this forum of people asserting that because religious claims cannot be scientifically tested, they "must be wrong"?

I would need some time to find the thread and the answers are given, but yes that is possible to do.
I do not know if it would be allowed by the forum rules to give the quote that the answer would have to be, but as long the rules are not broken why not?

 

[Jose Fly]

Okay, so you contributed nothing to my question. Thanks for your effort, nonetheless.

So you still have no idea at all how natural selection both depends on, and acts on variability in a population?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I would need some time to find the thread and the answers are given, but yes that is possible to do.
I do not know if it would be allowed by the forum rules to give the quote that the answer would have to be, but as long the rules are not broken why not?

Then please go ahead.

 

[tas8831]

...
Look at the eyes. What a match.

I'm betting you thing those 'big holes' on the sides are the eye holes, don't you?

Such is the depth of your pretend knowledge....

 

[Spirit of Light]

Then please go ahead.

Take a look in the Atheist DIR and you have countless people claiming that because there is no physical "proof" religion must be wrong

 

[tas8831]

Hey @Amanaki - observe the tone in you pal's post:

Seems to me most evolution believers are just happy to believe in ridiculous claims, but somehow believe that claims made for these ideas are facts.
Their best example for evolution from one LUCA is purely conjecture, and looking at it, one is left to wonder, how one can be that deluded.
Then you realize, it is simply an emotional attachment to a desired belief.
...

The dupers must be having a good laugh at the duped.
Pure conjecture based on subjective opinion is what this is.
It does make for quite a fanciful story.

Who knew, the day would come when myths were accepted in science. Yet evolution believers swallow it whole.​

Does that come across like nPeace is interested in debate or discussion? Does it seem like he is being friendly and honest? Does it seem like he actually understands the anatomy of the skull, understands the hypotheses or theory involved, or does it sound like he is just ridiculing that which he has been programmed to reject?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Hey @Amanaki - observe the tone in you pal's post:

Seems to me most evolution believers are just happy to believe in ridiculous claims, but somehow believe that claims made for these ideas are facts.
Their best example for evolution from one LUCA is purely conjecture, and looking at it, one is left to wonder, how one can be that deluded.
Then you realize, it is simply an emotional attachment to a desired belief.
...

The dupers must be having a good laugh at the duped.
Pure conjecture based on subjective opinion is what this is.
It does make for quite a fanciful story.

Who knew, the day would come when myths were accepted in science. Yet evolution believers swallow it whole.​

Does that come across like nPeace is interested in debate or discussion? Does it seem like he is being friendly and honest? Does it seem like he actually understands the anatomy of the skull, understands the hypotheses or theory involved, or does it sound like he is just ridiculing that which he has been programmed to reject?

Seems like nPeace giving an opinion and a view. Would not call it ridiculous

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe they do not see science as the true answer? Because time and time again science have to go back to rewrite their theory or they learn that whoops there was more to it than we first could record with our instruments. So science is not a solid answer either. A lot of science rely on instruments made by mankind, but instruments can only measure what they are intended to find, so not a complete truth finder

They are making an error. Science does not claim to answer all questions. But there are some that can be answered. Where we came from is one of them. It shows a damaged spirituality when one refuses to accept reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Seems like nPeace giving an opinion and a view. Would not call it ridiculous

The "ridiculous" claims were from @nPeace .

 

[Spirit of Light]

They are making an error. Science does not claim to answer all questions. But there are some that can be answered. Where we came from is one of them. It shows a damaged spirituality when one refuses to accept reality.

Not to make this into a religious debate But for those of us who hold a religious understanding it is more to the truth then only the physical realm

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not to make this into a religious debate But for those of us who hold a religious understanding it is more to the truth then only the physical realm

There may be. But where we came from is a question about the physical realm.

 

[Spirit of Light]

But one thing that should be said is that as a Buddhist who study the Buddhist texts and how things come to be sciences is not far from how a Buddhist see the start of this universe too The Big bang might have happened the way science can measure today, and according to some scripture the life rose from some form of primordial soup. maybe not so far from how science understand how life started on earth?

 

[Jose Fly]

Seems like nPeace giving an opinion and a view. Would not call it ridiculous

Ah Buddhists....

 

[Subduction Zone]

But one thing that should be said is that as a Buddhist who study the Buddhist texts and how things come to be sciences is not far from how a Buddhist see the start of this universe too The Big bang might have happened the way science can measure today, and according to some scripture the life rose from some form of primordial soup. maybe not so far from how science understand how life started on earth?

How life started is an unsolved problem. It is not part of the theory of evolution. But the evidence indicates that it was natural. Why would a religion demand that it be magical?

 

[Spirit of Light]

How life started is an unsolved problem. It is not part of the theory of evolution. But the evidence indicates that it was natural. Why would a religion demand that it be magical?

That is a very good question