Message from @Jenjen
Discord ID: 806364881426448414
so something started evolution
again: you realized that not everybody lives by the "scientific facts" or it's not true, right?
My you was a general you, that said if you believe in the Big Bang and want theists not to be theists then you would hold that view
and really. i am just baffled that you think people are "irrational" for believing in something that is yet to be proven. if it is proven, you can called them out. but it has YET to be proven, and here you are still saying assuming/extrapolate is wrong
i mean, athiests call us idiots for beleiving in God
Peak is about as catholic as Biden 😂
we all believe stuff with no proof
like the big bang theory
or God
sure. that is their belief. there are images that showed otherwise, but i have yet to travel out of space to verified it and call them dumb
But you can’t prove life would form on earth using evolution either. You can’t prove that the universe could be formed without God either, yet you clearly believe in these things
That makes you just as irrational
god is a form of faith, hope and reflection & a projection of us, imo. again, i don't know if there is an actual big god in the sky. but i believe there is a creator
Evolutionary *theory*
And again, I guarantee you won’t believe me and will ignore the fact that at the end of the day you are just as irrational as you claim creationists are
hey, thats a good place to start
And I don’t really care 😂
partially true. again, since you're really into science, read some psychology paper. it is proven that humans make irrational decision and justified them later on. therefore, yes, it is irrational. but it is very upturned-attitude from you to assume somehow you are more "rational" than them
best thing i've seen the whole discussion
First off lab settings are called lab settings because often times they don’t happen naturally, second if you are referring to the Miller Urey experiment not only was it flawed but when corrected didn’t produce the expected results
Of course they fired him because it goes against their theories
rip
ya ill find it for you
Yes burden of proof, evolution is the newer theory and has the burden of proof to irrefutably convince the older theory. You also came to the faith and religion chat attempting to fulfill your own goals with atheism and evolution putting the burden of proof once again on you as you attempt to contradict the primary point in this channel. You haven’t done so, as a matter of fact you give somewhat mediocre arguments at best and then insult those who believe in God
That’s called micro evolution and is different to macro evolution theory that you are familiar with. https://www.kolbecenter.org/should-catholics-believe-in-evolution/
Ey! whats up eggy?
Lab settings don't happen naturally. You can "prove" anything in a lab setting because you can manipulate it
also, it didnt happen spontaniously in a lab setting, someone started it
But evolution is something that couldn't have been controlled. You can make anything happen if you control it. I can control a rock by picking it up, but that doesn't mean it'll pick itself up.
If you come up with a new theory you have the burden of proof, thus newer theories have burden of proof.
It's random, meaning that lab settings don't mean anything or prove anything
he has a point tho...
I’m not arguing in bad faith, I have never pretended to believe your claims
Yes you’re right you still haven’t irrefutably proven your point. It still lies with you
Why would any of us refute out points?
if you could refute your point then its a flawed point isnt it?
It doesn't make any sense
of course
Again I’ve never pretended to entertain your notions