Science Really Does Point To God [Spirituality & Religion]

@hippyjoe1955 No because there is indisputable, clinical proof of common descent for chimps and humans. Evolution has been demonstrated unlike every religion and godlette people ever dreamed up.

@redredred Actually it is highly disputed by very top ranked scientists. Too bad you missed that part.

@hippyjoe1955 No its not, asshole

@redredred Yes it is. There is a lot of evidence disputing the assertions of the guy who flunked out of med school and seminary, one Charles Darwin. Guys who are doing things with nanotechnology beyond your understanding has been saying for many years now that evolution is bunk. He is making little biological machines. He understands the processes involved. Evolution is bunk because it can not get started.

@hippyjoe1955 Nanotechnology itself is proof of evolution.

@hippyjoe1955 "top ranked scientists" 😂

@Entwistle Nope. It is in direct contradiction. You can't get evolution to start. Life forms are too complex to have evolved. Then there is the problem with life. What is it. Nanotechnology has not recreated it.

@QuixoticSoul Says a guy with 40 year out of date text books to bolster his assertions. [b][u][i][quote]Too Funny!!!!!![/quote][/i][/u][/b]

@QuixoticSoul May be was a typo for top drunken ones 🤣

@hippyjoe1955 Yes, yes, back to pretending that ten year old textbooks are no longer valid because you prefer stone-age myths 🙄

I repeat - "top ranked scientists" 😂

And omg more of the nanotech nonsense.

@QuixoticSoul you mean like evolution? It had its start at the same time. Too bad you are not informed enough to know it.

@hippyjoe1955 You're thinking of Anaximander, an early natural philosopher and a pioneer of scientific thought. He's one of the first to posit that the universe operates by natural laws, and some of his guesses turned out to have startling prescience. Bronze age btw.

But he was still mostly limited by reliance on thought experiments, so that was simply a speculative guess - like that of the pre-socratic atomists.

@hippyjoe1955 Heres over 1400 real scientist named "Steve" who, like 97% of scientists, support evolution. Its simply a fact that real, qualified scientist (and not Doctors of Divinity or PhDs in Art History) overwhelmingly support the obvious, clinical evidence for evolution.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

@hippyjoe1955 [quote]redredred Evolution is bronze age as well. A school of ancient Greeks believed in its myth too. Shall we toss it in the trash heap of history as well?[/quote]

I'd never put the Word of God along with evolution in the bronze age. Evolution is a delusion, the Word of God is truth and is forever.

@GodSpeed63 "I'd never put the Word of God along with evolution in the bronze age. Evolution is a delusion, the Word of God is truth and is forever."

Well…

I'd never put the Word of God along with ID.
ID is a delusion.
Not a lot of Christians believe in nonsense like ID, for good reasons.


I'd never put the Word Science along with ID.
ID is a delusion.
Few scientists believe in nonsense like ID. And, when believing in it, they are certainly not doing Science.

@CharlieZ [quote]I'd never put the Word of God along with ID.
ID is a delusion. Not a lot of Christians believe in nonsense like ID, for good reasons. I'd never put the Word Science along with ID. ID is a delusion. Few scientists believe in nonsense like ID. And, when believing in it, they are certainly not doing Science.[/quote]

Forgive my ignorance, but, what ID are you referring to?

@GodSpeed63 ID, if I´m not wrong (if I am tell me please), the usual acronym for "Intelligent Design"

@CharlieZ [quote]I'd never put the Word of God along with ID.[/quote]

Why wouldn't you put the Word of God along with ID? Why do you think ID is a delusion?

@GodSpeed63 "Why do you think ID is a delusion?"

Because it is based in something notoriously inexistent.
The existence of reified non material pre existing entities, qualia-like, Platonic-like ones, like (repeating myself) "Redness".
Never detected, never meassured.
And based on what is (technically) called Logical Necessity (and Logical Imposiblility) wich are abstract and with no material correlate / commitment.

It haves no serious systematic data collecting.
It haves no rigurous theory building behind.

Because it´s philosophic antecedents in History never gave ONE contribution to Science.

But, mainly, because calling it Science, with the above said foundations, is much more than an error, is a fraud.

Fraud is a better word for it, instead of delusion.


Science should be not based on frauds.
Faith should not be based on frauds.