How convenient that your proof is completely unsubstatiatable.
Science is not a belief system in that sense. It is the set of explanations that best explain the phenomena of our universe. And what I mean by best is that they explain the greatest part of the current evidence, without introducing numerous other unobserved/unobserveable elements into the explanation, and is the most plausible.Science is a belief system which aims to minimize faith.
The two men who discovered the way evolution worked were both Christians at the time. One of them (Wallace) remained a devout Christian to his death, although Darwin did, late in life say he tended to be an agnostic.The driving force behind evolution today is the same as it has always been Ã¢â‚¬â€œ a way to deny the existence of God.
You've been lied to, I'm afraid.
This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt -- can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as the possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such a grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.[
That is something I find very ironic about atheists. They say that they believe that this life is all there is, yet, they will spend a good sized portion of it trying to battle other religions, to convince them that they are wrong. If I was an atheist, and believed that this life is all there is, I would not spend much of my "only time" trying to debate about religions, or prove religions wrong, or attack other religions. I don't personally believe that atheists exist, because I have yet to see just 1 that is convincing.Eve777 said:You've been lied to, I'm afraid.
If I am wrong, then I will just die and turn back to dust......and so will you....
But if I am right......I know where I will spend eternity! Do You?
Can you really be sure with all the scientific knowledge you have gathered to disprove God, that he doesn't exist?....Are you willing to bet your eternal soul on what you know so far? What if this was your last day on Earth? Are you really all that sure? One day it will be...it could be today!
Eve, do you have any back up for this at all?Darwin's vison was a world in which natural laws, rather than God, govern life on Earth. Darwin saw in nature -- a relentless struggle between creatures, where individual life is of little value.
Strip away from Darwin all that was developed or articulated by other people, and one must throw out the theory of evolution (Lamarck, and a hundred others), the theory of natural selection (Wallace), the laws of genetics (Mendel), the Struggle for Existence (Malthus, Lyell), the Survival of the Fittest (Spencer), and so on. All that remains in the end is Darwin's unique and dramatic vision of an all-embracing war of nature, an exterminatory, competitive fight for survival. It is a lurid vision of the process of evolution which has taken on a life of its own, and is still current, 150 years after the publication of Origin.
This vision of the process of evolution is a work of art, not science. Darwin brilliantly dramatised the process of evolution. But this dramatisation has now become an obstruction to the acceptance and development of the theory of evolution. Theories of natural selection do not actually require ideas of competition, war, and extermination. Idle Theory is a theory of natural selection, but it is not Darwinism. In Idle Theory, as the creatures multiply and their food resources dwindle, they simply work longer to find food, rather than become locked in deadly competition. Darwin's glamorous conflict is replaced by prosaic toil.
Some day, Darwin's advocates must make up their minds whether they wish to advance the theory of natural selection, or Darwin's dramatic version of it. It's one or the other, not both.
Agreed, Its amazing how much jargon can be used to rationalize thingsEve777 said:Most of us Christians don't do this sort of thing either, I do it because it's fun to watch you atheists try and defend the unjustifiable; untenable;
indefensible, insupportable, unwarrantable, position you are in...
Yeah right, like you care about staying on topic.SyntaxVorlon said:I can come back with more ad homenim attacks about your character, your opinions and the fact that your tie looks awful with that shirt, but I digress as this has gotten offtopic.
Stuff it Bop. You american pig-dog! You whose mother was a beta tester for soap and whose father was broken by falling stuffed animals. Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time-uh!Featherbop said: