Posted on 10/03/2013 12:54:16 PM PDT by kimtom
re: “Did Copernicus remove humanity’s special place as well?”
Where in the Bible does it say that the earth is the “center” of the universe?
I’ll ask you one - where in the Bible does it say that life only exists on earth?
On the other hand, the Bible clearly teaches that God created the universe and life itself.
“God created the universe and life itself.”
And Darwin’s theory doesn’t deny it.
re: “No scientific views include God.”
Now you’re showing your bias. However, I’ll accept your point that so-called impartial/objective science has removed God from any part of the equation as to the existence of the universe and the development of organisms/life. Removing God and viewing the universe only through a naturalistic secular world view not only removes Him, but also inherent human value and inherent meaning to existence. It is a small step from that idea to experimenting on human embryos, to full grown human beings. It is a small step from there to killing human beings in the womb to killing them after birth if they become “too intrusive”.
Remove God and you remove transcendent morality. Remove transcendent morality and anything goes who has the power or the “courage” as Hitler once said.
re: “God created the universe and life itself.”
Borges: “And Darwin’s theory doesn’t deny it.”
Darwin didn’t deny it, but he was certainly open to it and said so - didn’t you look at his letter at the website I gave you?
Even if Darwin himself didn’t deny it, I think you would have to agree that a large majority of scientists today would. The possibility of God being the “first cause” in the universe is not permitted to even be uttered in most public schools, let alone at secular colleges.
I guess, I will just have to disagree on both points.
no foul.
re: “And Darwin’s theory doesn’t deny it.”
And just where in “The Origin of the Species” does Darwin advocate that God created the universe and life itself?
And by the way, remember that the full title of Darwin’s book was:
“On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”
I wonder why the title was shorted to just “The Origin of Species” in 1872?
He doesn’t address it at all. It’s not relevant. Maybe the original title was too unwieldy?
Sounds like a deal ;-)
Since you are not serious, don't waste my time. (can't get plainer)
Don't engage your adversary in a serious argument, just demonize him. Your mentor Comrade Saul Alinsky will be proud of you.
You are Funny!!!
I got my first chuckle of the day!
Thanks!!
So if the oceans were only slightly more saline than rivers and lakes in Noah’s time, where are all the freshwater squids and octopuses?
No scientific idea includes God because there is no such thing as a God detector.
re: “No scientific idea includes God because there is no such thing as a God detector.”
You’re correct that no “machine” can detect God’s existence, but thinking, deductive reasoning people can. And you’re wrong about “no scientific idea includes God” - Newton believe in God, Copernicus believed in God, Galileo believed in God, Michelangelo believed in God - they had no issue about God and science. It’s only modern scientific thought that rules out God because it must. God cannot be considered because that has tremendous implications.
Many secular scientists believe that people who believe in God do so with “blind faith”, that is, without any evidence whatsoever. I admit that there are people who believe with blind faith, but that is not necessary. There is evidence for God’s existence. There is evidence for His non-existence. The question is, which evidence is stronger and answers more questions? Atheism or theism? Thus the arguing goes on and on.
To rule out God also rules out all supernatural activity. Is there no evidence for the supernatural?
The Bible writers say that the universe itself is evidence for God’s existence. Its complexity, its apparent design, its vastness, the delicate nature of life, the tremendous number of mutations that would have to take place at once in order for certain organisms or body parts to operate or exist.
Look, I don’t want to open up this whole argument again as you are either open to it or you aren’t. If you are open to the evidence (for or against God’s existence) then maybe there is something to discuss. If you’re not open either way, then talking about it is pointless.
God is unfalsifiable, therefore no scientific theory can include God. God is simply outside the narrow scope of science.
re: “God is unfalsifiable, therefore no scientific theory can include God. God is simply outside the narrow scope of science.”
I agree that God’s existence is unfalsifiable and that He is outside of the narrow scope of science, however I do not conclude with you that therefore God can have no bearing or consideration in scientific theory.
He can have no consideration in the science of the purely atheistic, naturalistic view of the universe because God is assumed to not exist. That is an assumption and a bias toward how evidence is viewed.
Why not? Are you supernatural?
you’re weeding out what you THINK are the weakest but you could be wrong.
So you are saying that Darwin (and you) have no clue as to what you mean when you say the "weakest will naturally get weeded out over time."
We’re EXTRA-natural, outside of natural processes, because we’re thinking about things. Natural processes work without thinking, they are how the seemingly chaotic world works out. Darwin and I both know what we mean when we say the weakest will naturally be weeded out, what we don’t know is if our JUDGEMENT of the weakest is ACTUALLY the weakest. It could easily wind up that what society decides is the weakest is actually strong, just look at how society generally judges the “nerds” among us and how much the “nerds” have wound up running things since the computer revolution began. You could easily see where a eugenically bent society would have weeded out the “nerds” for being physically weak and socially inept and thus prevented the last 30 years of technical growth (and even further back, you can easily argue it was the “nerds” that spawned the industrial revolution and everything that’s come since).
So you are not part of nature? That's an interesting assertion. I guess it means that humans could not have evolved, since Darwinism is a natural process and humans are, as you say, outside natural processes.
Darwin and I both know what we mean when we say the weakest will naturally be weeded out
I doubt it.
You could easily see where a eugenically bent society would have weeded out the “nerds” for being physically
You could easily imagine fairies under the garden too. Is there something factual behind this "weakest will naturally be weeded out" idea? Or does it mean anything you like?
Your problem here is you take things out of context and then try to make them say what they didn’t say. Basically you resurrected a months old thread to lie about what people said, are therefore beneath contempt and not worth my time. Goodbye.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.