Empirical Evidence of God
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Thats the way Jan demand folk back up their claims and dont accept any nonsence back that there is plently of scientific evidence out there.
These scientists just think they are always right because they rely on facts when you and I know facts have nothing to do with the truth because we know the truth when we are born and after all that theory of evolution is after all just a theory.
The good book is quiet clear that God made the first human out of dirt what more evidence do you need than that.
You watch folk try to sidestep this and call you a hypocrite just because they are too lazy to cite the hundreds of scientific papers that relate to evolution.
I realised today I have been wrong saying all the God stories were made up by superstitious folk in the bronze age as given Mosses took notes on stone it would appear we are dealing with superstition that could be seen as having stone age origin.
And all of it must be true otherwise God would have said something before now.
On a serious note I was reading the bible today and heck there ate a lot of words in it...there would be not so many words unless there was a God behind it.
I wish you well Jan and although we may not see eye to eye on God I feel that you realise in your heart that I am right because I only present you with the truth.
And there is nothing wrong with bronze unless its made with arsenic which apparently was the way it was made back then...maybe it was the arsenic that caused folk to think crazy and lean to superstition.
I am getting so tired of watching that atheist show.
I wait and wait for someone to show Matt up but only idiots call in.
Why dont you call him as I bet he could not nail you down.
It must be a worry to be on a side where most of the players cant carry the ball...I think its time you put in for a transfer to the wining side.
All the best keep up the good work in the real world.
Alex
Take it to a new thread.
Goldtop
Registered Senior Member
Have you read the book, "On The Origin of Species"?
https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Species-150th-Anniversary/dp/0451529065
Goldtop
Registered Senior Member
Is that a sufficient definition for you?
But, your clothes are not you, they are not part of your body as per the definition above.
Not, that I'm aware. What would be the point of that? Folks who do science are doing so in order to gain knowledge and understanding of the world around them, if such understanding leads one to come to a conclusion of not accepting claims of theists about their gods, then that is what they have concluded. It may be right or it may be wrong, but that doesn't preclude the fact that the claims of theists about their gods are still just clams.
Nope, just an observation. I would be happy to know if any theists here understand evolution and what they're thoughts are about it.
How about yourself, have you read the book, "On The Origins of Species"?
I don't need to. There is almost 200 years of science to back that up, available to everyone (except, of course, the willfully ignorant.)
I do. If you don't like it, feel free to explain why.
Even the Catholic church accept evolution as a reality.
Yes.
Yes.
You?
The definition doesn't account for personality, life-force, "I", etc.
They are as much you as your body when you where them. "My trousers", my coat", my "arms", "my nerves", "my gloves", etc.
If atheists scientists did that, it would be for the purpose of advancing an atheist agenda. What do you think?
Please do tell how, through the process of doing science, one can come to the conclusion that there is no God.
And humans evolving from non-humans, isn't just a claim?
I think if it was a fact, there would be no doubt among all scientists. As it stands there are divisions.
What do you mean by "understand evolution"? Plus why is your concern only for theists? Do you think all atheists who believe in darwinian evolution, understand it?
Jan.
I knew you were going to say that.
You're getting too close.
Must change my tactic.
Jan.
You'll never change.You're getting too close.
Must change my tactic.
Jan.
I change quite a lot. You just don't notice? Too busy defending your delusion I guess.
Jan.
Goldtop
Registered Senior Member
Did you agree with his postulates? Diversity of species and natural selection?
Seems fine.
Is there any reason why we couldn't say, "My personality, my life-force, "ME" etc.?
If atheists scientists did that, it would be for the purpose of advancing an atheist agenda. What do you think?
I'm sorry, but I have not heard of such a thing. Are there well known scientists whose work specifically had an atheist agenda? I know Dawkins has an agenda, but his work as a professor is separate from that agenda.
There's no science I can think of that specifically would target that conclusion. I think the way something like that would work is if for example, there was a particular claim interpreted from Scriptures to mean something. If some scientific theory were to show it meant something else, then that particular claim could be put to rest as refuted if it could not be supported other than with Scriptures. This still does preclude any particular Gods existence one way or the other.
Yes, there are divisions, usually in the form of theists with a Creationist agenda attempting to show evolution is wrong, but they have yet to succeed. One of the most famous group that comes to mind is the Discovery Institute.
I can't really tell of all people who may or may not understand evolution until I hear them talking about it, then it gets very clear very fast as to who does. I've yet to hear an atheist who accepts evolution to not understand it. But, I can't speak for them all.
The times I do hear someone talk about evolution who doesn't know what they're talking about are always theists and usually ones who have a Creationist agenda. They seem to always point to the Bible when they can no longer argue their assertions.
There's nothing to defend. Literally nothing. No gods require no defence. Existence of things requires defence.
Goldtop, FYI, Jan has no acceptance of the weak atheist position. He views atheism solely as "belief that there is no God", i.e. the sstrong atheist position. You can argue about how you might be an atheist yet not hold the belief that God does not exist, and Jan may give lip-service to acknowledging, and even understanding, that position, yet in his next utterance he will likely revert to atheism equating to "belief that God does not exist".