Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

[beenherebeforeagain]

Theists are obligated by God of Love to love atheists, but not the atheism. The atheists are not obligated, they are free to love or to hate.

Apparently, you are claiming to speak for ALL theists...

I'm pretty sure there are lots of theists who believe in the Theory of Evolution and think your defense of creationism is stupid. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of theists who do not characterize their deity/deities as "the God of Love," which is certainly a limited definition/perspective on who/what deity/deities is/are.

And, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of theists who hate others, for all kinds of reasons. This 'hate the sin but love the sinner' approach is really not at all common in my experience.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Just stay within the declaration of religious freedom. Atheism is not a religion.

And yet I am free to be an atheist. Would you be one to want to take away that particular freedom of mine? Something tells me you are of that type.

Just know that I would never attempt to take away your freedom to practice your religion - I would, in fact, argue for it against anyone who wanted to try. No one should be able to dictate what the rest of us think - you included.

 

[questfortruth]

Apparently, you are claiming to speak for ALL theists...

Please do not delete the thread, because I am speaking in my worldview. Others have different views.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Please do not delete the thread, because I am speaking in my worldview. Others have different views.

I don't have the power, nor do I have the wish to delete this thread.

You are free to express your worldview, as far as I'm concerned.

But, you chose to express your worldview in the RF Religious Debates forum. That implies that you wished to debate the topic of your OP. You have apparently changed your mind now...

 

[questfortruth]

You have apparently changed your mind now.

I have delivered my worldview. Others have delivered their own worldviews. Now, all worldviews are explained and clear. Anybody can abandon the old worldview and take a new one from the worldviews on the discussion table.

 

[syo]

Theists are obligated by God of Love to love atheists, but not the atheism. The atheists are not obligated, they are free to love or to hate.

You have a point.

 

[Nakosis]

What testable alternative is there?

God, obviously.

Sorry, that was a bit snide.

Darwinism is an explanation that fits the information we have available. Would that make it a theory or hypothesis?

 

[Nakosis]

Theists are obligated by God of Love to love atheists, but not the atheism. The atheists are not obligated, they are free to love or to hate.

Fortunately for me, I don't need a commandment from God to obligate me. I've learned from experience that hate holds no benefit for me or others.

I don't think humans are good with commandments. We still have wars and the world is mostly run by religious folks.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Theists are obligated by God of Love to love atheists, but not the atheism. The atheists are not obligated, they are free to love or to hate.

Something for you to think about: A moralistic atheist has obligated themselves to care for others and treat them fairly/just/well. However you, as a theist, needed an edict from "God" to do so, did you not? Or would you have treated others fairly and well without God in your life, do you think?

Careful now... for you have made for yourself a most devious trap with your statement above. If you answer that you could have been a moral, upstanding human without God, then you prove that God is not at all necessary for such things. However, if you answer that you would not have been moral/just/fair without God, then you are admitting that you, yourself do not have the wherewithal to come to moralistic conclusions yourself - which would be a very sad state of affairs indeed.

 

[MJ Bailey]

Darwinism is nothing more than a complete insult to what True Evolution is. One smart guy that had a gist of reality and made it into what and how they believed it should be go figure

 

[shunyadragon]

Natural Theology does.

No, you cannot provide a falsifiable hypothesis with 'Natural Theology.'

 

[shunyadragon]

No. We need School/lab prayers to solve the Q-problem:
Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability or how Science has run into the Q-problem by Dmitri Martila

There is no Q problem.

 

[metis]

But Darwinism is wrong and absurd because humans can not be born by a monkey.

The mere wording of what you wrote above indicates that you really do not understand much about the ToE. No biologist is going to make the absurd claim that we were "born by a monkey".

Thus, Science has its agenda, it is the weapon of atheism, nihilism, and naturalism.

That is simply terribly wrong, as most Christians, including most Christian theologians, accept the basic ToE as long as it is understood that God was behind it all. Also, to condemn "science" as such is so absurd because the word "science" means "knowledge": Science - Wikipedia

So, are you opposed to "knowledge"?

 

[shunyadragon]

The mere wording of what you wrote above indicates that you really do not understand much about the ToE. No biologist is going to make the absurd claim that we were "born by a monkey".

That is simply terribly wrong, as most Christians, including most Christian theologians, accept the basic ToE as long as it is understood that God was behind it all. Also, to condemn "science" as such is so absurd because the word "science" means "knowledge": Science - Wikipedia

So, are you opposed to "knowledge"?

It is not clear that most Christians accept the science of evolution and abiogenesis. Surveys over the years have shown that 40% or more in the USA do not accept the science. This percentage of those that accept the science includes by far most non Christians that believe in the science of evolution, abiogenesis that support the science. If we are lucky about half the Christians of the USA support the science of evolution,

 

[Father Heathen]

Your quest for truth is doomed to failure.

 

[metis]

It is not clear that most Christians accept the science of evolution and abiogenesis

Abiogenesis and the ToE are not synonymous, as one may accept the ToE but reject or question abiogenesis.

Surveys over the years have shown that 40% or more in the USA do not accept the science

Yep.

If we are lucky about half the Christians of the USA support the science of evolution,

I think it's slightly higher than that, but certainly not by much.

 

[ChristineM]

But Darwinism is wrong and absurd because humans can not be born by a monkey.

Correct, humans did not evolve from a monkey. But they did evolve from an ape like creature.

FYI What’s the Difference Between Monkeys and Apes?.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But Darwinism is wrong and absurd because humans can not be born by a monkey.

Since this statement has NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO with what the Theory of Evolution says, you have once again demonstrated that you are fighting against what you don't even remotely understand.

Would you please avail yourself of at least a minimal amount of education about the topic before you embarass yourself further? Since you style yourself as on a Quest for Truth, that would seem to me to be a most admirable start.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Since that is something that Darwin did not posit, since that is not something that evolutionists posit, the most charitable thing I can say is that you have been misinformed.

I admire your desire to be charitable, but at some point, I think it necessary to speak truth -- especially to one who claims to be questing for it.

It becomes, I think, really absurd after a while that after having made the same claims -- dozens and dozens of times -- and having them easily refuted -- dozens and dozens fo times -- the only respone seems to be "damn the torpedos and make the claims again." This is not just ignorance. This is a deep affection for ignorance, an addiction to mis-information.

It is, in fact, a very sad misuse of what the human mind is actually capable of.

That needed to be said.

 

[Revoltingest]

God, obviously.

Sorry, that was a bit snide.

Darwinism is an explanation that fits the information we have available. Would that make it a theory or hypothesis?

Being testable, it's a theory.
What tests are applied to God?