Mister Silver
Faith's Nightmare
I believe in evolution. You're welcome. Thanks for the assumption.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.
- Thread starter dad1
- Start date
I believe in evolution. You're welcome. Thanks for the assumption.
That shouldn't be an obstacle for a faith based thinker. Just believe them by faith. Faith is a reliable method for determining what is true, right?
Again, that should be no problem for you. Just believe it by faith. Ready?
Voila! It just became a fact.
What flood? Houston? That was Texas' former governor's doing. He had the whole state praying for rain. With faith, you can move mountains.
I know that there was no global flood as described in Genesis.
Do you know the Lord, Loki? You cannot please Loki without faith. He loves you. He told me.
Won't you let Him into your heart, or is it so hardened that you won't?
Jumi
Well-Known Member
He's a scientist and you're not. If you don't understand the science even at a low level, it's normal that you don't see any support. There are many people who don't see any proofs of mathematics even at high school level, yet there they are for all to see.
Tell me, what other beliefs can produce things like computers, satellites and nuclear power? If science is a belief, it's the superior one compared to all others. But of course it's not belief-based, you would know that if you had studied any real science. And no, science doesn't conflict with belief in God. In my country it's normal to believe both evolution and be a member of the Church. It's only religions that make scientific claims that they can't prove (except to their followers) that feel threatened by science.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
You're the one conflicting established theories and you want to debate with other laymen without providing any of your own proofs?
If you ignore scientists, is there any truth that would even convince you.Desert Snake
Veteran Member
You don't understand the difference between conjecture and scientific theory, /your own premise.
Evolution theory is conjecture, not science, //no missing link.
"Evolution is a scientific theory..."
Evolution - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Protip: Click on the words `scientific theory` above to learn the meaning.
Last edited:
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Which somehow isn't conjecture...!
No, that is just unwise.
Not "somehow".
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Your nonsense word games are entertaining sometimes.
Syncretic, what do you know of what a theory is?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
You don't need a belief when you have hard data that proves and confirms.
Evidences abound in your own body your own existing tailbone, and appendice , body hair, and the webbing between your fingers and toes. Of course you probably won't believe the evidence of your own body in respect to your vestal organs and traits that you branched off from other species even if it's proverbially biting you in the face.
Tell me the differences between early developing fetuses. Which ones are animal and which ones are human? I doubt you would be able to tell on a good number of them which is exactly which, during initial early stages of development.
If it's the origins of man you're talking about then it's abogenesis, not evolution.
I could never figure out why Christians could never get that part. Even if they're told again and again and again that evolution is not abogenesis.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
You know there's some potent indoctrination at work when people trust ancient superstition over modern science (yet have no qualms with using medicine and technology developed by the very same methodology that they denounce).
Looncall
Well-Known Member
I agree, the drastic degradation that religion imposes on the human intellect is astonishing: determined ignorance, bare-faced lying, pathetic gullibility, offensive arrogance, puzzling lack of connection to reality, and on and on.
The victims constantly embarrass themselves by behaviour that any honest person would eschew, yet they have the effrontery to feel virtuous about it.
I do not know who is more at fault, the scoundrels doing the indoctrinating or the fools who fall for it.
That is because they do not realize that there is a dramatic difference between the two approaches. The OP shows that very well.
Biblical science was often based on evidence.
For example, the earth is clearly flat and fixed with a sun rotating around it.
Since rain only falls downward and never back up, obviously all new rain must be let in through some kind of dome with sluices in it above which an inexhaustible supply of water must reside.
Bats are animals with wings, which makes them birds.
Most of the months and days are named after Roman or Viking gods. Is that also significant?
- "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" - Richard Dawkins
Perhaps none that you are aware of, but that is by choice. If you cared about such evidence, you'd have it already.
There is also much evidence that the story of Noah's ark cannot be true, either.
Dad1 has his own reality.
It doesn't matter that the evidence clearly shows differently.
Once you have separated your beliefs and worldview from evidence and reason you might come to believe almost anything.
Tom
We don't have words known to have come from any god. What we have are words attributed to a god, which are really evidence of nothing except that several somebodies are claiming that a god told them something long ago. We don't even have evidence that they believed what they wrote themselves.
When you open the book and read it, you find evidence within that the god described within could not have existed. It's logically impossible by virtue of it having been ascribed mutually exclusive attributes like the famed married bachelor. Do you think that such a thing can exist? Of course not, not if we mean married and bachelor in the usual sense (not a bachelor married to his work, for example), and we mean in the same person at the same time.
We also find evidence in the book that its authors knew no more about the world than their neighbors, further evidence that those are not the words of an entity with superhuman knowledge or even one with contemporary human knowledge.
What you are asking others to believe is that the author of that book was the same as the source of the universe. Isn't that a bit like asking them to believe that the author of misspelled graffiti sprayed onto the base of a bridge is the same as the designers and creators of the bridge?