Creationists could disprove the Theory of Evolution entirely, and it wouldn't give the God Theory any more credibility.
Vestigial Body Parts debunked as "Proof" of Evolution
- Thread starter Woody1
- Start date
God provided life , God provided the environment , as environment changes , life adjust itself to the environment to survive and so organism evolve to acquire different forms.
Here creation and evolution work hand in hand.What is the fuss.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
You saw God doing that? When? What did he look like? Did he wear a big hat?
Oh wait...you just believe it because the Holy Babble said so. Nevermind.
That is not to smart. I am at the end of creation so how could I be there . But He speaks through some people through the Holy spirit and they write it down , What do you think about that ?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
“It is time we admitted, from kings and presidents on down, that there is no evidence that any of our books was authored by the Creator of the universe. The Bible, it seems certain, was the work of sand-strewn men and women who thought the earth was flat and for whom a wheelbarrow would have been a breathtaking example of emerging technology. To rely on such a document as the basis for our worldview-however heroic the efforts of redactors- is to repudiate two thousand years of civilizing insights that the human mind has only just begun to inscribe upon itself through secular politics and scientific culture.."---Sam Harris
Thank, you you keep your view and I keep mine . amen !!!
When exactly did vestigial body parts become CRITICAL in the theory of evolution such that debunking
(ie further research to establish exactly the role, and as further info comes to light CHANGING the role,)
their role leads to eliminating the theory?
The PROOF of evolution has NEVER hung on the role of vestigial body parts
Also the THEORY of evolution is continuing work in progress to provide
the BEST explanation for "nature"
And there are many explanations competing to be the best
with one with the offering the most compelling evidence rising to the top
The "god did it" brigade have only one jelly bean in the jar
Problem is the jelly bean MUST remain in the jar and cannot be checked for its flavour
No evidence of flavour therefore open to being of any flavour
Shoehorning ANY flavour (theory) onto the bean along with the claim "god did it"
while keeping the bean in the jar makes it untestable
When they get a few more jelly beans in the jar and
leave the jar open for people to pick and choose and
give reasons and
provide evidence of
why their jelly bean is the best
will truly test the "god did it' explanation
(ie further research to establish exactly the role, and as further info comes to light CHANGING the role,)
their role leads to eliminating the theory?
The PROOF of evolution has NEVER hung on the role of vestigial body parts
Also the THEORY of evolution is continuing work in progress to provide
the BEST explanation for "nature"
And there are many explanations competing to be the best
with one with the offering the most compelling evidence rising to the top
The "god did it" brigade have only one jelly bean in the jar
Problem is the jelly bean MUST remain in the jar and cannot be checked for its flavour
No evidence of flavour therefore open to being of any flavour
Shoehorning ANY flavour (theory) onto the bean along with the claim "god did it"
while keeping the bean in the jar makes it untestable
When they get a few more jelly beans in the jar and
leave the jar open for people to pick and choose and
give reasons and
provide evidence of
why their jelly bean is the best
will truly test the "god did it' explanation
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I read the earlier thread that Woody referenced at the start. It is from 2005, not 2009 as he stated.
It is mildly amusing to note that he is, after an interval of twelve years, coming back here to address a handful of minor points that cropped up in the course of that thread. Rip van Winkle or wot?
In fact there was some good quality dialogue in that thread, from people long since gone from here. (But not really from Woody.)
It is mildly amusing to note that he is, after an interval of twelve years, coming back here to address a handful of minor points that cropped up in the course of that thread. Rip van Winkle or wot?
In fact there was some good quality dialogue in that thread, from people long since gone from here. (But not really from Woody.)
From a BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) program QI I learnt
mushrooms are closer to humans than plants
Found this link
http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/DeepGreen/NYTimes.html
Who would have thought god has a sense of humour
Humans close to mushrooms indeed
Never saw that one coming
Mind you being kept in the dark and being fed Cowpat should have been a clue
Next wacko scientist will be tells us the Earth is older than 6,000 years
Gotta laugh eh?
mushrooms are closer to humans than plants
Found this link
http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/DeepGreen/NYTimes.html
Who would have thought god has a sense of humour Humans close to mushrooms indeed
Never saw that one coming
Mind you being kept in the dark and being fed Cowpat should have been a clue
Next wacko scientist will be tells us the Earth is older than 6,000 years Gotta laugh eh?
Ted Grant II
Registered Senior Member
Everybody seem to have responded with most of the good points that appeal to me. I am reminded that if the theory of evolution was disproved tomorrow, it might please may creationists, but it would not contribute any support for their theory and their delight would be short-lived. None of the s0-called "proofs of God" actually prove their particular God exists in any case and the lack of proof in any scientific discipline certainly does nothing to further their project. I am sure that these points have already been made many times, but I like them still.
The point is you are stuck in you view ( godless ) and we are stuck that there is a supreme force
Evolution is product of change in environment and God the supreme force changes the environment. So the living organism adjust to survive , moves or perish.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Not necessarily godless.
Most scientists that believe in God, most theologians - and in fact most people who have really thought about it - would accept that there is no proof of God's existence. If there were, it would be common knowledge, not a matter of faith, and we would not be arguing about it!
Last edited:
Tell me how much effort are we making to find God ? How would you like that God would present Himself to you or to a society so that we would say, yes " I have sean God " If He would appear in China , would we in the west believe them ?
People have tested some assumptions of religion, like if prayer works. (it doesnt)
People have tested some assumptions of religion, like if prayer works. (it doesnt)
Who are the people . I definitively believe people with your approach ( nonbeliever ) God will not appear and say "look at me I am god " they would do the same as they did to Yahshua (Jesus)
I'm talking about the Dr. Herbert Benson study. Obviously they didn't use non-believers.
Francis Galton, Randolph Byrd, William Harris, Fred Sicher, the Mayo Clinic, Duke University and Herbert Bensen to name a few.
Of course, it might be possible there is a God, and he doesn't answer prayers. But if he did at least some of the time, we should be able to observe that effect statistically, given that we constructed the experiment properly, used sincere participants who prayed for real things.