The books full title talks about natural selection, and just the term Macro-Evolution came about later doesn't mean the teachings of it were absent from his book.
Lol if the Pope John the second believed in evolution, we have evolution happening in front of our eyes, god does not exist and if it weren't for evolution we would not exist creationism doesn't have any proof creatinism is a bad theory science can be considered as close to the word "god" as you can get.
look, to be scientifically proven, an event must be able to be recreated in the laboratory. according to scientific naturalism, stars don't exist because you can't recreate it in a lab. But if I go otside right now, I can see stars twinkling in th sky. That is why this theory is crap.
Wait, I get the feeling we're being a little imprecise about something.
The premise of science in its current state lies in predictability. When one says "recreatable", we mean that we can recognise all relevant circumstances such that "all things being equal, we can replicate this result". This is the evidence for our systematic description of things.
What I'd want to know is exactly how far scientific naturalism takes this- does it literally mean that only that which man can recreate himself exists? Because that would indeed be problematic- to the extent that I'm not sure how far it actually takes this.
In any case, to say that science can be considered God would mean that from the above, man would ultimately have to be the ones able to predict every result- hence man is equated with god.
Looking at the original phrase that spawned this tangent:
...science can be considered as close to the word "god" as you can get.
This can be interpreted in multiple ways, not just implying Scientific Naturalism. Note the usage of the word "as close", meaning an implicit denial that science = God (whatever this means in the context of the original statement), an acknowledgement of the skepticism that ultimately forms (IMHO) the most sturdy cornerstone for science. Atheism aside, that's a good thing.
Also, how does Scientific Naturalism differ from Positivism?
Ignorant fools like Darkroot just make me laugh. They act like they know everything, and claim evolution solves everything, when in actuality, they end up looking like idiots, and do not support their cause (in a positive way) at all.
If anything, and I believe DanielMcNeely stated this as well, technological and scientific advances have all but disproven evolution. In Darwin's time, microscopes were hardly as advanced as the ones we currently have in the present day, so he himself could not see the utter complexity of one single cell; the theory that the magnificent cell structure came from a 'freak accident', takes more faith than it does for me to believe in God.
So, in a way, I admire the faith of an atheist, as I could never comprehend all that it takes to believe in such a philosophy.
Hmm... Evolution...thought about it but just cant believe it. Its crazy!
A 21st century man knows precise information of just of how any organism involved, where they involved from, and the time? Right...
When scientists talk about evolution it does not sound real at all and they talk just like a religious person would talk about religion. Everyone not believing in God has wrapped around themselves to the theory of evolution. I say it is a religion for most. So many alternatives but they will claim evolution as a FACT!
Evolution is an theory of Charles Darwin and him only. All of sudden no one even heard of such a thing as evolution until he comes up with the theory?
Evolution says that it all started out with a big ball of energy. How was that energy created? It also says that man came from apes. Why are apes still what they are today? But I also know that there is the question about how was god created and how did he always he exist. If g In the bible it says that he stated himself I am the alpha omega. Alpha is greek for the beggining and omega is greek for the end. Since god lives (which is my belief) he is all powerful and since he is so powerful of coure its possible that he always existed.
It does say that God created the world in 7 days, but it does not go into detail about that and how he did it. Maybe somewhat of evolution is real (except the part about the apes, it explains how he created humans), maybe God created the big ball of energy known as the Big Bang.
Yet again I have to state this point about evolution, which is getting very tiresome. Humans did not evolve from apes, we simply shared a common ancestor. Also, evolution does not try to postulate a "big ball of energy" as the start of anything. I've never heard that theory in reference to anything before. If you say that this "big ball of energy" had to come from something, then so did god. You don't get to change the rules. Or rather if you do, then so do I. Bloody, in what ways have science disproved evolution? Using the cosmological argument for god's existence because cells are really complex just doesn't really cut it at all - the argument has been shot down by many many philosophers. There are so many things that we didn't even have a concept of just a hundred years ago: other galaxies, a great deal of biology, general relativity... the list just goes on and on. Something like evolution is extremely complex to understand because it was more or less chaotic. We're having to work backwards from knows premises to try to deduce rationally and empirically an incredibly complicated series of events. I in no way think that our current understanding of evolution is totally accurate - I'm sure the theory itself will evolve. But I would much rather postulate some chaotic events occurring than the creation of a sentient being with magical powers.
Moegreche, you probably know more about evolution than me so my last comment was probably somewhat flawed as I did not take my time on it. The big ball of energy and the evolution of apes was how I was tought evolution.
As for the part where you say God had to be created from or by something, I did state that if there is an almight being such as God of course it would be possible to always exist. I know the thought is very confusing (it confuses me horribly) but God can do anything and that includes always having existed.
This argument has been used before, many times. Perhaps if I explain the flaw in it, it will make more sense. Here's the argument:
1) God is the most powerful being in the universe. (Definition) 2) The most powerful being in the universe must exist. (From 1) / God exists. (From 2)
This is a very standard ontological argument for the existence of a god. It was first used by St. Anselm, then forgotten for a long time, and used again by Descartes and several others. Premise 2 absolutely follows from 1, and the conclusion certainly follows from 2 - the problem comes in with Premise 1. This is the definitional objection. If you're using the definition of something to prove its existence, you're actually begging the question - but it took awhile for philosophers to figure this out. I could prove the existence of anything with the definitional argument, watch:
1) Unicorns have sharp horns that can hurt you. 2) Anything that can hurt you must exist. / Unicorns exist.
Again, the same thing. 2 follows from 1 and implies the conclusion. But I have to assume that unicorns exist in order to say that they can hurt you. The same thing happens with god - I have to assume that god exists to say that god is the most powerful being in the universe. Here's how the argument should read:
1) If god exists, then god is the most powerful being in the universe. (Definition) 2) If god is the most powerful being in the universe, then god must exist. (from 1) / god exists. (Hypothetical Syllogism 1,2)
But really, what I've just proven is: If god exists, then god exists. But that doesn't help us very much at all! And that's our philosophy class for the day, remember there will be an exam on Tuesday!
Look, the whole point of the Christian faith is just that - faith. There are just some things that us humans, with our limited knowledge, can never understand in this life.
