Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

[Altfish]

Same does Natural Theology. To distinguish it from Science one understands, that Science is religion-free.

Science follows the evidence; makes predictions and tests them; it is constantly checked and re-tested.
You wouldn't be discussing with me on here if it wasn't for science

 

[leroy]

Darwinism is "useful", not "proven".
Although...there are no scientific alternatives to it.

Epigenetics, neutralism, natural genetic engineeringetc... would be some alternatives that are being discussed in the scientific community.

to say that darwninism is the only alternative is simply wrong

But sure, Darwinism is the only “atheist friendly” alternative

 

[questfortruth]

what is official Science?

Google: "master list of journals".

 

[questfortruth]

Science follows the evidence; makes predictions and tests them; it is constantly checked and re-tested.
You wouldn't be discussing with me on here if it wasn't for science

There is almost no difference between Science and Natural Theology. But Science is anti-religious. For example, Darwinism has converted many scientists and many simple people to atheism.

 

[questfortruth]

Epigenetics, neutralism, natural genetic engineeringetc... would be some alternatives that are being discussed in the scientific community.

to say that darwninism is the only alternative is simply wrong

But sure, Darwinism is the only “atheist friendly” alternative

In the video of Ben Stein was said, that there are no peer-review papers, which put Darwinism in doubt. Can you show these papers?!

 

[leroy]

In the video of Ben Stein was said, that there is no peer-review papers, which put Darwinism in doubt. Can you show these papers?!

sure
for example this paper provides an alternative to darwinism called natural genetic engineering, where the organism reassembles its genome (in a leggo like manner) to overcome selective pressures, this mechanism is not random, genomes are modified based on the needs of the organim.



However there is no peer review paper that concludes that Darwinism is true (beyond reasonable doubt) …….. in other words we simply don’t know how organism evolve, there are many candidate mechanisms, but none has been proven to be the “correct one”

 

[Altfish]

There is almost no difference between Science and Natural Theology. But Science is anti-religious. For example, Darwinism has converted many scientists and many simple people to atheism.

How many medicines have been discovered by Natural Theology?
How many inventions have come out of Natural Theology?

You really need to check facts before you make ridiculous statements like that.

 

[questfortruth]

How many inventions have come out of Natural Theology?

The Natural Theology has studied the Christian God, and has proven His existence, for example in "Five ways of Thomas Aquinas". Then it would have studied the Creation (it means, the Universe, nature) as well, but came the Science and won: "God is dead" (F. Nietzsche). "And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations." Revelation 13:7. But if the Pythagore was theist, then he has prayed before proving the Pythagorean theorem. Thus, this theorem is the product not of Science, but of Natural Theology.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I have seen the angel prior to my baptism. And I had no schizophrenia diagnosis, thus, it was not a hallucination.

Within this sentence is one of the hallmarks of a poor thinker. You are trying to definitively state that because "[you] had no schizophrenia diagnosis" that this equates to the angel you supposedly "saw" being completely real, and from the "realm of God" and any number of other things that you STILL do not have any evidence for that can be shared, or is even worthy of being shared. Are people with "schizophrenia" the only ones who hallucinate? Are hallucinations the only explanations for seeing something and thinking it is something in particular that may not truly be there or simply may not be what it appears to be? You are one who makes many, many assumptions and claim to have knowledge that you do not actually possess. This is how you behave - as is evidenced by your behavior in threads like this one - and therefore you are not to be trusted.

 

[questfortruth]

Are people with "schizophrenia" the only ones who hallucinate?

Nobody is sick, nobody hallucinates, nobody is wrong, nobody is criminal until proven sick and wrong. It is the Presumption of Innocence. Without it all in doubt, and no knowledge.

 

[Revoltingest]

Epigenetics, neutralism, natural genetic engineeringetc... would be some alternatives that are being discussed in the scientific community.

to say that darwninism is the only alternative is simply wrong

But sure, Darwinism is the only “atheist friendly” alternative

Consider that "darwinism" has been expanded upon greatly
since its eponym's day, & now includes much more detail.
Remember, he had no inkling of DNA, yet we see it as a
mechanism behind his theory of evolution.
Again....what is the testable alternative, particularly a
religion based one?
A popular one is the "god did it" proclamation.
But how can it be shown to be "not even wrong"?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Nobody is sick, nobody hallucinates, nobody is wrong, nobody is criminal until proven sick and wrong. It is the Presumption of Innocence. Without it all in doubt, and no knowledge.

It is with the POSITIVE claim (the one making a claim that something is the case) that the weight of EVIDENCE rests. YOU are the one saying you saw angels... I can't, in any way, corroborate this. YOU are the one who has to convince me. And it is going to take A LOT more than you stating "I'm not sick." I don't care if you're not sick... you saying there are angels just isn't going to fly unless you can somehow DEMONSTRATE it. In other words, I don't believe you, and the ridiculously low caliber of evidence you are trying to pawn this off with is just further demonstration supporting the idea that you should not be trusted. ESPECIALLY when you think it is just fine and dandy to present such crappy, paltry evidence and then expect everyone to just accept it and stare at you in awe with their mouths dropped open. No one cares about your angel claims - nor should they until you can provide something with even a small amount of substance. Right now you have nothing. NOTHING.

 

[leroy]

Consider that "darwinism" has been expanded upon greatly
since its eponym's day, & now includes much more detail.
Remember, he had no inkling of DNA, yet we see it as a
mechanism behind his theory of evolution.
Again....what is the testable alternative, particularly a
religion based one?
A popular one is the "god did it" proclamation.
But how can it be shown to be "not even wrong"?

I just gave you 3 non-religious alternatives to Darwinism…………neutralism, epigenetics, natural genetic engineering.
Each of these alternatives have a place in the PR literature, and are testable and falsifiable,

 

[Revoltingest]

I just gave you 3 non-religious alternatives to Darwinism…………neutralism, epigenetics, natural genetic engineering.
Each of these alternatives have a place in the PR literature, and are testable and falsifiable,

Could you elaborate on how those explain the phenomenon of evolution?

 

[rrobs]

The journals are enterprise for producing truth out of incoming manuscripts.
Darwinism is accepted by all top journals.
Thus, Darwinism is Scientifically proven.
But Darwinism is wrong and absurd because humans can not be born by a monkey.
Thus, Science has its agenda, it is the weapon of atheism, nihilism, and naturalism.

Before the birth of Science in the 16-th century, there was Natural Theology, which has studied
Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, etc. The Scientific Revolution is the separation between
Faith and Reason, which led to the separation between Church and State. Latter is obvious,
because if Christian hell is real, then there can not be indifference for state leaders in
the question of religions.

The other day my dog was looking into my eyes as thought he thought I was God. A simple thing yet incredibly profound.

I thought it would be interesting thing to work backwards from a dog staring intently into their owners eyes to the big bang and imagine what mutations would have had to occur to make that possible. And that is just one little thing. How about one single cell in your body producing in .005 second what it would take the fastest computer in the world 30,000 years to do the same calculations.

It's mind numbing to think of how many beneficial mutations (by far, most are not beneficial) would have had to occur to go from the big bang to where we are today. I don't care how many years we have, I think it naive to think we could have had that many beneficial mutations. Talk about taking something by faith!

 

[leroy]

Could you elaborate on how those explain the phenomenon of evolution?

Could you elaborate on how those explain the phenomenon of evolution?

For example natural genetic engineering is a non random mechanism where the genome reassembles itself in a “leggo like” manner based on selective pressures and the needs of the organism. As a result of this mechanism new proteins and functions can arise in a glimpse.

So perhaps maybe this mechanism played a major role in evolution,

 

[questfortruth]

So perhaps maybe this mechanism played a major role in evolution

So, it is the old idea: monkeys gave birth to us, but not through the Darwinism.

 

[Altfish]

The Natural Theology has studied the Christian God, and has proven His existence, for example in "Five ways of Thomas Aquinas". Then it would have studied the Creation (it means, the Universe, nature) as well, but came the Science and won: "God is dead" (F. Nietzsche). "And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations." Revelation 13:7. But if the Pythagore was theist, then he has prayed before proving the Pythagorean theorem. Thus, this theorem is the product not of Science, but of Natural Theology.

I rest my case

 

[shunyadragon]

1. You understand me, but you have a negative attitude. By the same token they accept the existence of God of Gaps, but they hate Him.

Who hates God? Atheist do not hate God{s), because they believe they do not exist.

2. The prayers at school/labs drive the demons and UFO away from books, apparatus, experiments. Otherwise, they can corrupt them:

This off the deep end of paranoid superstition, or your a deciple along with Trump of the witch doctor Dr.Stella Immanuel

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.

What is the Q problem?

3. All theistic religions have at least one truth in common: "God's name is God, and He does exist"; the second common knowledge is: God loves the world.

True sounds like the belief of the Baha'i Faith.

 

[Revoltingest]

For example natural genetic engineering is a non random mechanism where the genome reassembles itself in a “leggo like” manner based on selective pressures and the needs of the organism. As a result of this mechanism new proteins and functions can arise in a glimpse.

So perhaps maybe this mechanism played a major role in evolution,

What's the experiment to test predictions of this hypothesis?
What is the mechanism for "natural genetic engineering"?
Who are the engineers?