Stick to this position, and maybe people might stop mocking you because that is all they actually know. These winnets are putting words in your mouth, and confusing your thought patterns for their own uneducated pleasure. You're above everyone else in this thread.
It is the official position of the Catholic church who accept evolution. This myth word you like using, can you prove that God is a myth? Lack of proof is not proof, and the burden of proof lies with you.
He was on to a different position within two pages. But stop talking about other people here. What do YOU believe?
I believe in God, always have and always will.No empirical evidence just faith, just like an atheist, but I admit I can't prove it. And I don't know if evolution is correct or not, I have no faith in it as it's not important to me. An atheists faith hinges on evolution and not God.
Actually, theistic evolution does not require that God meddle with the process. It is in essence the view that the universe is God's creation, including the patterns or laws according to which nature seems constrained to behave - and which the evolution of life also follows. While some may think meddling is involved, it strikes me as pretty counterproductive to argue in favour of meddling, as that would introduce an unevidenced, and thus not scientific, supernatural component to the process. Since the whole point of it is to reconcile science with religion on this issue, that would seem to defeat the purpose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution The view that evolution depends on meddling by God is ID, surely?
Pretty much in relation to JC ...anyone can. Its much like proving daylight as all you do is look. But I suppose the qualifyer is...there are none so blind as those who will not see. If you look you will see JC was a myth it is that simple. If you want to prove there is a god the burden of proof is with you. If I want to say there is no god the burden of proof stays with you. We have a group of frauds, our human gods, all with the same basic MO ...human gods and JC was just another and if you cant figure it out from there well you are not really trying. Have you forgetten already...the universe is eternal and requires no creator ... JC was just another human god based on astrology. Alex
I have no intention of proving if God is real however you are the one making the claim that he isn't. Do you understand? So you think because of your claim that Jesus is a myth it is the end of God? Have you heard of Judaism? Explain, maybe in another thread, how you have proved that the universe is eternal.
Good! That's a clear statement of belief, something we don't see too often here. It's somewhat more important to me since my wife is a surgeon, and I'm concerned about the world I am leaving my children. Nope. You can have atheists that don't think evolution works. You can have staunch Catholics who accept evolution as how life came to be on this planet. They're separate things.
Hmm. From the link you posted, it sounds like their position is that "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God" and they accept "that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God." Perhaps the distinction is that ID proponents claim that God drives evolution directly (i.e. a platypus looks like that because God wants it to) but in theistic evolution the guidance is much more gentle i.e. subtle tweaks to physical constants, starting conditions and mutation?
If evolution is a fact, and happens so slowly, then why aren't there half-breeds (missing links) still alive today? They should still be walking the Earth. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No. Good because you cant. Absolute waste of energy trying to prove something that does not exist. No and I have been careful not to say that although admitedly I may have got carried away and hinted at that...but generally no. JC is a myth. Yes have you heard of Thor? I have less of a problem with the Old Testament because in effect you have a man claiming he recorded his Gods words and presumably he believed that was what he was doing fact or delusion who knows who cares but with JC the proposition is a con job using well tried and tested models all based on astrology . Sun worship would have been common so along comes a con artist and thru personification and astrology creates the concept of a human god... So the NT is based on a lie...it is that simple. OT no one claims to be God and all we have is various efforts to understand the mind of God ...no one claims to be God. See the difference. Alex
I think I started a thread ..... There is no need to prove something that is self evident...as there is no creator there is no creation and the universe is eternal. Some try to claim there is an eternal creator who somehow for whatever reason came out of eternity having spent a long time there..an eternity actually one must expect...to create a finite universe... I know I know it sounds absolutely ridiculous but some folk think that but here is the kicker they think this eternal being comes out of eternity to build this finite universe for the exclusive use of humans...that would be like building a 3000 room hotel and renting only one room...well actually that does not cover it...observable universe 100 billion light years diameter ...billions perhaps trillions of objects...planets even and only one is going to be used. So the eternal creator idea is just so crazy you dont need to think about it. Alex
As I understand it (this is what I was brought up with), the only claim is that creation was , well, created and the order we see is thus God's order. There is no suggestion the normal laws have been interfered with in order to produce the results we see. So set in motion, yes, but perhaps also "upheld", in the sense that the laws and order we see continue to apply, rather than changing or collapsing. It gets a bit close to Spinoza's or Einstein's "God", in a way.
There are. Everywhere. Everything you see is in principle in the process of changing from something to something else. Though there are some species that seem to have changed very little for a very long time, e.g cockroaches, crocodiles.
I agree and IMO, even very old species have highly evolved specialties which allowed them to "survive and procreate" A shark's sensory equipment is far from "primitive". https://www.sharktrust.org/en/shark_origins https://www.sharktrust.org/en/shark_senses Bees, Ants and Termites have highly evolved functional hive systems.
