Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

[SomeRandom]

Apparently, you are claiming to speak for ALL theists...

I'm pretty sure there are lots of theists who believe in the Theory of Evolution and think your defense of creationism is stupid.
.

Umm well yeah

 

[lewisnotmiller]

But Darwinism is wrong and absurd because humans can not be born by a monkey.

I like this sentence. It has terms like 'Darwinism' which I find pretty horribly loaded, plus draws a conclusion based on a straw-man premise. That's a lot for one small sentence to manage. No-one is suggesting a human can be born by a monkey.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No. We need School/lab prayers to solve the Q-problem:
Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability or how Science has run into the Q-problem by Dmitri Martila

I mean...you're just dressing up God of the Gaps in another guise there.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Would you please avail yourself of at least a minimal amount of education about the topic before you embarass yourself further?

I harbor no such hope. Apologists are like that only.

 

[questfortruth]

Fortunately for me, I don't need a commandment from God to obligate me. I've learned from experience that hate holds no benefit for me or others.

I don't think humans are good with commandments. We still have wars and the world is mostly run by religious folks.

 

[questfortruth]

Something for you to think about: A moralistic atheist has obligated themselves to care for others and treat them fairly/just/well. However you, as a theist, needed an edict from "God" to do so, did you not? Or would you have treated others fairly and well without God in your life, do you think?

Careful now... for you have made for yourself a most devious trap with your statement above. If you answer that you could have been a moral, upstanding human without God, then you prove that God is not at all necessary for such things. However, if you answer that you would not have been moral/just/fair without God, then you are admitting that you, yourself do not have the wherewithal to come to moralistic conclusions yourself - which would be a very sad state of affairs indeed.

The thing is simple: I am afraid of my invisible King of Kings, so I follow His commandments. I am afraid of hell.

 

[questfortruth]

God of the Gaps

The God of the Gaps is not a blaspheme, but the name of the God of Existence.

 

[Milton Platt]

The journals are enterprise for producing truth out of incoming manuscripts.
Darwinism is accepted by all top journals.
Thus, Darwinism is Scientifically proven.
But Darwinism is wrong and absurd because humans can not be born by a monkey.
Thus, Science has its agenda, it is the weapon of atheism, nihilism, and naturalism.

Before the birth of Science in the 16-th century, there was Natural Theology, which has studied
Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, etc. The Scientific Revolution is the separation between
Faith and Reason, which led to the separation between Church and State. Latter is obvious,
because if Christian hell is real, then there can not be indifference for state leaders in
the question of religions.

If a monkey gave birth to a human, it would actually be evidence against evolution. By the way, there is no such thing as "Darwinism". Please use the correct terms.

 

[Milton Platt]

The God of the Gaps is not a blaspheme, but the name of the God of Existence.

God of the gaps is an argument type, not a name.

 

[Bear Wild]

The thing is simple: I am afraid of my invisible King of Kings, so I follow His commandments. I am afraid of hell.

So do you believe out of fear?

 

[questfortruth]

No, you cannot provide a falsifiable hypothesis with 'Natural Theology.'

I repeat, the functions of Science were conducted under the name of Natural Theology. The Natural Theology is acceptance of God of Love, so they prayed every morning at schools/lab. There was much less crime on the streets. We were never locking up our homes and cars. Today with the disbelieve in all goodness the Love runs out, and they are happy about it:

A moralistic atheist has obligated themselves to care for others

It is very easy to obligate oneself. Nobody will punish such a human, because this human never sends himself to hell.

Being testable, it's a theory.
What tests are applied to God?

So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
John 20:25 NIV This test was conducted 2000 years ago.

 

[questfortruth]

God of the gaps is an argument type, not a name.

I argue, that the God of Love likes to be called God of Gaps.

 

[Milton Platt]

I argue, that the God of Love likes to be called God of Gaps.

Okay, go ahead and present your argument. Where do you get this information?

 

[blü 2]

Darwinism is accepted by all top journals.
Thus, Darwinism is Scientifically proven.

More accurately, the theory of evolution has been found to give a satisfactory framework to account for the workings of evolution in the real world.

But Darwinism is wrong and absurd because humans can not be born by a monkey.

The theory of evolution doesn't assert such a thing. It says instead that from the available evidence it appears that ─

Human evolution starts from the most basic form of life (protobionts, presently undefined)
to the single cell (Prokaryota) 3.5 bya
to nucleated multicelled (Eukaryota) [though some say Eu- was before or simultaneous with Pro-] 1.7 bya
to bilateral symmetry (Bilateria) ›555 mya
to a stomach with two openings [mouth and anus] (Deuterostomia) ›555 mya
to a notochord [‘spinal chord’] (Chordata) ›555 mya
to a backbone (Vertebrata) ›525 mya
to a movable lower jaw (Gnathostomata) ›385 mya
to four legs (Tetrapoda) ›385 mya
to eggs with water retention suitable for dry land (Amniota) ›340 mya
to eye sockets each with a single opening into the skull (Synapsida) ›324 mya
to mammal-like reptiles (Therapsida) ~274 mya
to ‘dog teeth’ (Cynodontia) ~260 mya
to milk glands (Mammalia) ~200 mya
to vivipars and monotremes (Theriiformes) ›160 mya
to modern vivipars (Holotheria)
to proto-placentals and marsupials (Theria)
to placentals and certain extinct non-marsupials (Eutheria) ›160 mya
to placentals (Placentalia) ~110 mya
to all mammals except the Xenarthra [sloth, armadillo, anteater] (Epitheria) ~100 mya
to bats, primates, treeshrews (Archonta) ~100 mya
to tarsiers, monkeys, apes (Haplorrhini) ~63 mya
to New and Old World monkeys and apes (Simiiformes) ~40 mya
to Old World monkeys and gibbons (Catarrhini) ~35 mya
to apes [great apes and gibbons] (Hominoidea) ~29 mya
to hominids / great apes [orangutans, gorillas, chimps, Homo] (Hominidae) ~25 mya
to hominins [gorillas, chimps, Homo, H. floresiensis, H. Denisova] (Homininae) ~4.5 mya
to Homo [H. sapiens, H. Neanderthalis, ] (Homo) ~2.4 mya
to Homo sapiens [Homo sapiens Idaltu, Homo sapiens sapiens] (Homo sapiens) 250 kya
to Homo sapiens sapiens..​

Thus, Science has its agenda

The agenda of science is to explore, describe and seek to explain reality by empiricism and induction. That's to say, science argues honestly and transparently from examinable evidence to best conclusion, seeking to maximize objectivity.

So if you want to argue with science, all you need is the evidence and the consequent argument, both to scientific standards.

it is the weapon of atheism, nihilism, and naturalism.

Since science is concerned with reality, and when it comes to gods no one can say what science is supposed to be looking for in reality, I suggest that if there's any fault here, it doesn't lie with science.

 

[questfortruth]

By the way, there is no such thing as "Darwinism". Please use the correct terms.

I will not testify against my Jesus Christ. I mean, I love Darwinists, but I am angry at Darwinism. I respect Darwinists, but I disrespect their Darwinism. And because I am the enemy of satan, I do not respect him, I write his name not with capital S, but with s.

 

[questfortruth]

Okay, go ahead and present your argument. Where do you get this information?

The Gaps in Science is the correct observation. But it was OK to fill the gaps with God prior to 16-th century. Now not the fact of gaps is changed, now the attitude became corrupted. However, we still need the God in the Gaps. Why? To make Peace between religions and Science.

 

[questfortruth]

So do you believe out of fear?

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. A good understanding to all that do it: his praise continueth for ever and ever.
Psalm 110:10 DRA

 

[Milton Platt]

The Gaps in Science is the correct observation. But it was OK to fill the gaps with God prior to 16-th century. Now not the fact of gaps is changed, now the attitude became corrupted. However, we still need the God in the Gaps. Why? To make Peace between religions and Science.

I don't think you really understand what the god of the gaps argument is. It merely means that a god is being used as an excuse for explaining things not yet understood....sort of a placeholder for ignorance. It may be accepted by some people, but it was never okay. It is more honest to simply say "I don't know".

 

[questfortruth]

So if you want to argue with science, all you need is the evidence and the consequent argument, both to scientific standards.

 

[questfortruth]

I don't think you really understand what the god of the gaps argument is. It merely means that a god is being used as an excuse for explaining things not yet understood....sort of a placeholder for ignorance. It may be accepted by some people, but it was never okay. It is more honest to simply say "I don't know".

No. God of the Gaps is God's Holy name. Someone hates the God, so he has bad attitude to the God of the Gaps. As example, the satan and his followers hate the God of the Gaps.