Can a person actively reject something they don't understand?

[Smokie]

I'm not offended by you or your views, since I place little value on the latter. I do recommend that you stop ignoring facts. That might allow coherence to enter your posts.

I'm not offended by you or your views, since I place little value on the latter.

Well said actually

 

[Speedwell]

Actually there are about 2.2 billion Christians of which I am one. However I am not one that ignores abuse as some seem to be able to do.

That aside do you believe that the USA should abandon capitalism as the Pope said that Capitalism has failed the World? Because the only other choices are socialism or communism?

Pope: Market capitalism has failed in pandemic, needs reform (apnews.com)

We're not taking about child abuse or the Pope, either. We are talking about your assertion that acceptance of a naturalistic explanation for a physical phenomenon is a denial of God.

 

[pitabread]

I do believe the first scientist came out places like Egypt, Greece, etc.. all pagan peoples

So?

Do we define subjects on the basis of their origins?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

LOL there are now scientist that babble that life came to Earth on an asteroid, they say this because they can not accept that life came to the Earth by a process unknown to man that is called God.

That idea is called panspermia and has been talked about since the early 19th century.

No offence intended, but you do seem remarkably ill-informed about the subjects you pick to post on.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You were correct in the first sentence and could have stopped there. The implication of epigenetics is that there is a mechanism that allows a parent to communicate the past thru a genetic pathway that tosses random mutation to the curb as the only way for change as this is clearly not random. When this is figured out we will see an entire new layer of info in the genetic code. Which may change many ideas

We still have much to discover - so what?

 

[Smokie]

We're not taking about child abuse or the Pope, either. We are talking about your assertion that acceptance of a naturalistic explanation for a physical phenomenon is a denial of God.

I agree but not all seem to be sticking to the thread concept. Actually a new theory is extrapolating that gravitational expansion is speeding because of an influence that comes from outside of our universe as the closer a galaxy comes to this point the stronger the attraction becomes. So this is also just another example of science creating supernatural and unfounded ideas to explain away observations. Why does this type of assertation not bother you however God does?

 

[Smokie]

That idea is called panspermia and has been talked about since the early 19th century.

No offence intended, but you do seem remarkably ill-informed about the subjects you pick to post on.

LOL the FBI said that once and also got educated.

Yawn

Why is what someone chooses to call an unfounded babble important? and the new theory is that the universe is really a computer simulation by the way, so there is no real life according to Tyson

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And your degree included information that you "learnt"

Interesting

If you've not yet encountered the concept of higher education, you might find it informative...

But if you're implying that such teaching is dogmatic, you'd be wrong.

 

[inquiring mind]

I agree but not all seem to be sticking to the thread concept.

Smokie, welcome aboard the ship ‘Evolutionist Playbook’ (Phase 1 – discredit; Phase 2 – attack; Phase 3 – scramble the entire conversation). Congratulations, you’ve made it to phase 3, most don’t get past phase 2.

 

[pitabread]

No offence intended, but you do seem remarkably ill-informed about the subjects you pick to post on.

Especially ironic for someone who keeps accusing everyone else of being ill-informed of the same.

 

[Speedwell]

I agree but not all seem to be sticking to the thread concept. Actually a new theory is extrapolating that gravitational expansion is speeding because of an influence that comes from outside of our universe as the closer a galaxy comes to this point the stronger the attraction becomes. So this is also just another example of science creating supernatural and unfounded ideas to explain away observations. Why does this type of assertation not bother you however God does?

Again with the lie. God does not bother me. Given your behavior here, perhaps it should bother you.

 

[pitabread]

Smokie, welcome aboard the ship ‘Evolutionist Playbook’ (Phase 1 – discredit; Phase 2 – attack; Phase 3 – scramble the entire conversation). Congratulations, you’ve made it to phase 3, most don’t get past phase 2.

Perhaps you haven't been following the thread, but the scrambling of the conversation has been coming from them (e.g. Smokie). They repeatedly hop from subject to subject, often multiple times within the same post.

Take a look at post #126 for example. Can you explain what they're trying to say their post (especially in context of what they are replying to): Can a person actively reject something they don't understand?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

LOL the FBI said that once and also got educated.

Yawn

Why is what someone chooses to call an unfounded babble important? and the new theory is that the universe is really a computer simulation by the way, so there is no real life according to Tyson

Yawn indeed

Wake me when you have something other than mangled misunderstanding to offer.

 

[Smokie]

If you've not yet encountered the concept of higher education, you might find it informative...

But if you're implying that such teaching is dogmatic, you'd be wrong.

LOL, actually I am implying that learnt is not a word in the English language.

 

[Speedwell]

Smokie, welcome aboard the ship ‘Evolutionist Playbook’ (Phase 1 – discredit; Phase 2 – attack; Phase 3 – scramble the entire conversation). Congratulations, you’ve made it to phase 3, most don’t get past phase 2.

As far as I am concerned there is only one phase: expose, denounce, and if necessary report to the moderators the lie that a natural explanation for a physical phenomenon denies divine causality.

 

[Smokie]

Yawn indeed

Wake me when you have something other than mangled misunderstanding to offer.

So Tysons theory that the universe is really a computer program bugs you. Makes me ROTFALMFAO, but I do understand your frustration

The really sad thing is that every computer program has a writer and or creator

 

[Ophiolite]

LOL the FBI said that once and also got educated.

Yawn

Do you see rudeness as your forte, or is it just akin to a Gouldian spandrel arising from your arch commentary?

 

[inquiring mind]

As far as I am concerned there is only one phase: expose, denounce, and if necessary report to the moderators the lie that a natural explanation for a physical phenomenon denies divine causality.

But, questioning the interpretation of a natural explanation for physical phenomenon isn't a lie.

 

[inquiring mind]

Have you undertaken any post-secondary education? Have you ever studied at any scientific subjects (even just a single class) at the post-secondary level?

Do you mean for indoctrination, or to develop original thought on the subject?

 

[pitabread]

Do you mean for indoctrination, or to develop original thought on the subject?

I mean exactly what is worded in the original question. Have they ever studied anything (especially any science classes) at the post-secondary level?

I'm trying to get a sense of whether they have any first-hand experience with anything they are spouting off about here. Especially when it comes to things like making accusations re: dogmatism in higher education.

 

[inquiring mind]

I mean exactly what is worded in the original question. Have they ever studied anything (especially any science classes) at the post-secondary level?

Well, it wasn't originally addressed to me, so I should deflect I guess.

 

[Speedwell]

Again with the lie.

But, questioning the interpretation of a natural explanation for physical phenomenon isn't a lie.

Which avoids the issue nicely. The assertion being made in this forum is that a natural explanation for a physical phenomenon denies divine causality. Questioning whether a given natural explanation is adequate to explain the phenomenon is a different issue altogether.