Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
darwinist are debating evolution,,Is there any scientific theory, other than evolution, where the scientists who promote it spend their time debating with people who make religion-based arguments that said scientific theory cannot be true?
I think not.
Imagine there was a religion that taught that God had made the world flat.
Would planetologists spend time debating with the proponents of the Flat Earth religion?
No, they would not.
Imagine there was a religion that taught that God had made the Moon out of cheese.
Would astronomers spend time debating with the proponents of the Moon is Cheese religion?
Absolutely, no.
Imagine there was a religion that taught that the entire universe was nothing more than an imaginary construct in the Mind of God?
Would astrophysicists seek out the believers in this Universe is the Mind of God religion to convince them they were wrong?
No.
Then why is it that Darwinists are constantly engaged in endless debates with Creationists and promoters of Intelligent Design in a pointless effort to convince them they are mistaken?
And -- here's the thing, I admit that I myself have expressed doubts about Darwinism on this forum because (1) I find it interesting that a scientific theory is defended by its proponents with the same zeal as a religion, and (2) I find it amusing to watch Darwinism's zealous defenders get upset when I express the slightest doubt that their beloved scientific theory might not be true.
So -- what's really at stake in this debate?
It's not about science. Not at all.
The debate between Darwinists and Creationists/Promoters of Intelligent Design is a debate about God and his role in creating the universe.
Both sides of the argument believe that if Darwinism is accepted as true, God's role in the creation of the universe is disproven, ergo: there is no God.
With the belief in the existence of God at stake, both sides fight fiercely because no issue can be more important to the human race than that.
Both sides of the debate believe that if Darwinism is true, and God doesn't exist, life is a struggle where the strong prey on the weak, and there is no room for mercy because the weak should die out. This philosophy is called Social Darwinism, it is the belief system that inspired Adolph Hitler and his Nazis.
I believe there is a middle ground.
Darwinism is true, but God exists and had a hand in the universe's creation. The story of creation in the Book of Genesis teaches us important religious truths about God, man, and our role in the universe, but was not intended by its authors to teach science.
Social Darwinism is a wicked philosophy when applied to relationships between humans, and the role of government in the lives of humans. Social Darwinism inspired a genocide that cost the lives of millions of humans under the Nazi regime.
That, I believe, is the correct position. If I had the power, I would end this endless debate between the Darwinists and the Creationists/Promoters of Intelligent Design by saying: "You are both right -- but you are also both wrong. The theory of evolution and belief in God can co-exist."
Here's proof.
Did Noah REALLY Bring Dinosaurs on the Ark?:
I hope you’re just kidding. It isn’t like the science of AGW climate change hasn’t been held to scrutiny by every climate research facility in the world. Every govt, every accredited university and every related major institution and corporation and military . When these are considered, they employ over 95% of not nearly all of the worlds scientists, let along climate scientist.Science, like life, is constantly evolving.
What is known to be true today is discarded as falsehood tomorrow.
When scientists, or more likely those who falsely claim they speak for scientists, proclaim that "the science is settled", the more probable conclusion is that science has been forced to take a position in the interests of increasing the political power and wealth of those who are forcing science to take that position.
Dissent from an established scientific position is not something to be punished, it is to be encouraged as normal and healthy. The only way science will ever discover the truth is through a process of questioning positions that have been established as orthodoxy.
Nah…denialism is all made up shit by religious fanatics and people who NEVER do their own studies.“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.” (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)
“The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.” (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)
“Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.” (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)
“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)
“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)
I have many more like these if you wish to read them,
.
EXCELLENTYou cling desperately to a tautology prattled 165 years ago by a mediocre old man, who knew nothing about biochemistry, statistics or physiology and claim that anyone not on your side of the debate is "ignorant"?
Are you also thinking about changing sexes?
Get a room!EXCELLENT
You’re describing yourself. Amazing.You cling desperately to a tautology prattled 165 years ago by a mediocre old man, who knew nothing about biochemistry, statistics or physiology and claim that anyone not on your side of the debate is "ignorant"?
Are you also thinking about changing sexes?
