- May 20, 2021
- 3,136
- 574
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
Yes.
They are made of their own unique corporeal substance.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes.So all living things have souls?
They are made of their own unique corporeal substance.Are other animals not made of 'corporeal substance'?
Until you agree with those non-deducible and rational First Principles of philosophy, I would have nothing to appeal my criticism to that I could expect you to respect.If you don't agree that the criteria I presented were suitable for distinguishing between good explanations and bad ones, criticise them and/or suggest your own, and defend your title claim by those criteria.
You have obviously never performed an even mildly sophisticated measurement like a titration. There is a reason why spreadsheets have functions like the standard deviation.
Nope. Where's the authoritative citation? Perhaps because it does not support your conclusion.
You erroneously state that only Christians hold that God created the universe.
It's not hard to get things wrong.
Specialization is not the problem you imagine it is.Please let us know when the consensus reduces from the current 26 definitions of speciation to, let's say, just a few.
Do you seriously think that the fact that "species" is a slippery term to define hurts the concept of evolution? You have it backwards. Species is hard to define because of the fact that life evolved. If life was the product of creationism it would be easy to define species since there would be well defined "kinds". Any time that creationists try to define "kind" they end up shooting themselves in the foot. Their beliefs say that it should be a term that can be well defined but they always fail to do so. Evolution on the other hand predicts that there will be points where what particular species a population belongs to would be hard to decide. That is why today's biologists rely on cladistics. Cladistics is rather clear. There can be doubts if a particular example is ancestral or an "uncle" but there is little doubt about the overall clade of the example. For example there was a fair amount of variation in Homo erectus since it was very successful species. Whether one specific fossil was ancestral or a closely related sub-population that went extinct can be hard to determine, but that they are related is not in doubt.Please let us know when the consensus reduces from the current 26 definitions of speciation to, let's say, just a few.
The really basic stuff to remember is that "invention" is not "discovery".
There were many questions about Flew towards the end of his life, and how much of those books he actually wrote.
The Case of Antony Flew
He said this with a laugh. When we began the interview, he warned me, with merry self-deprecation, that he suffers from “nominal aphasia,” or the inability to reproduce names. But he forgot more than names. He didn’t remember talking with Paul Kurtz about his introduction to “God and Philosophy” just two years ago. There were words in his book, like “abiogenesis,” that now he could not define.
Anthony Flew was a well respected atheist that supposedly became a theist towards the end of his life. Christians like to imply that he became a Christian. I think that their reasoning might be:Is Anthony Flew the "evolutoinist" of people? Someone who is only mentioned as an attack? (In the case of "evolutionist" or "Darwinist" to imply that accepting the findings of evolution and science was some how a dogma or belief system of "evolutionism" or "Darwinism".)
I have no idea who this person was, but I've seen many a Christian bring him out as if some how his (alleged) conversion to Christianity in his dotage should be evidence against "the atheist position". (again, whatever that is)
From this short excerpt it would seem he may have been a philosopher. That would of course explain why I have no idea who he is or what his contribution to thought and knowledge was.
The only people who ever seem to bring him up are Christians as an attack on atheists. A sort of "here's one of your greats. He converted, why don't you." This is never a good argument.
When I left The Church, I had no idea Richard Dawkins was an atheist. To me he was an English biologist who wrote very good books about evolution and who fought the good fight against the anti-science that is creationism. I had never read any atheist literature and would have been hard pressed to identify any famous non-believers. It wasn't arguments against God or Christianity that sent me away, but the slow realization that I didn't find the supernatural claims that were central to the religion plausible and that normal human activities could sufficiently explain the origins and development of Judaism and it offshoot, Christianity. My problems were not with the practice of the Church, so there was not lure in Protestant versions, and the Church had done an excellent job at preparing my mind to view non-Jesus religions as inherently wrong.
The alleged death-bed conversion of Hitchens would have no bearing on my position (and it is almost certainly false), nor would I care if Dawkins became a tent revival preacher teaching from the works of AiG.
One final note, as I said above, when I left the Church I'd never read any "atheist literature" or consumed any similar arguments. Ironically it was *this very website* where I was first introduced to the atheist movement, bloggers, and YouTube. And I only came here because I went deep down a pseudoscience (non-creationist) rabbit hole one Saturday afternoon. The site was interesting so I stuck around to browse a bit, and much later, joined the conversation. So congratulations CF, you didn't make me an atheist, but you did make me an aggressive one.
Kind = GenusAny time that creationists try to define "kind" they end up shooting themselves in the foot.
Uncertainty in the Age of Fossils and the Stratigraphic Fit to PhylogeniesI grant that you have not claimed that the planet is only a few thousand years old, but you appear to be saying here that there are significant errors in the ages obtained for rocks. How large do you think these errors are? Do you think, for example, that the age of the beginning of the Cambrian period was only 500 million years rather than the generally accepted age of 542 million years, or do you think that the true age was only about 5 million years? How large, in your opinion, do the errors in age have to be to vitiate the fossil record as evidence for evolution?
If you google on 'geological time scale' you will obtain about 121 million results; the different versions of the time scale for the Phanerozoic eon are by now in agreement to within better than 1%. What evidence have you that the errors in the time scale are large enough to cast doubt on the fossil record of the evolution of living things, and, in particular, on the evolution of Homo from the australopithecines and, before them, from Miocene apes?
Do you believe man is fully explained by evolution?It depends what you mean by 'everybody'. If all professional biologists believed that humans evolved from Ediacarian invertebrates, would you have serious doubts about your lack of belief? If 99% of professional biologists believed this, would you still have serious doubts? What about 98%, or 95%? At what point would you think that there were enough biologists who had doubts about our evolution from invertebrates to justify your lack of belief?
If you think that there is not enough evidence for you to believe that we evolved from invertebrates, what do you think about the evidence that we share common ancestors with apes? Again, if 99% of biologists believed in our descent from simian ancestors, would you have serious doubts about your lack of belief, or would you insist on 99.9% or 100%?
Sorry, that is only moving the goal posts since there is no hard definition of "genus" either. You still have the exact same problem:Kind = Genus
Which question were those? To date, 60 posts from me on the thread. This is 61.I have questions. But you don't seem to want to answer them.
I've answered your particular question at least twice so far.. Did you not read the quotation? It's pretty clear.Quite nice. But where is the overlap? You said there was one. I'd like to know where you think it is.
Which question were those? To date, 60 posts from me on the thread. This is 61.
And only claims but no explanations. You spend your time being negative. So for the fourth (or fifth?) time...
You said there was an overlap between the theological and scientific explanations. What is that overlap? Let's look at the scientific aspect of your claims.
Yes, the majority of the OT is anonymous (much of the NT as well). So claiming a book is inspired by a god/s is putting the cart before the horse, don’t you think? I really don’t have a dog in this fight, but you’re the one claiming to have a relationship with the god/s, and some immaterial part of you traverses the ether when you die, thereby securing a spot on the Eternal Heavenly Praise Band (I have an anonymous source that claims he likes adulation, etc.)."Meaningless posts" = "Meaningless posts" + 1
I've answered your particular question at least twice so far.. Did you not read the quotation? It's pretty clear.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?