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.
I gave you real quotes from real scientists. If you can't find them that's your problem.No. That is not true. You only made empty claims that you did not support. One of them appeared to be because what you posted was simply false. I even did your homework for you and posted a link from the search that I did. You could still not find your supposed article.
You have refuted yourself.
40So how old when he discovered the new world?
Feeling incredibly blessed that in my Love of God there is no need to defend anything against science. For myself, there is no separation to defend.What are you doing to defend your doctrine against science? besides nothing?
Well science could use a lot of thinkers like you.Feeling incredibly blessed that in my Love of God there is no need to defend anything against science.
No, you were being insulting. When a person makes claims that he should be able to support, and when you claimed that there were specific articles you should have been able to quote and link them, and then that person does not provide the needed quotes and links one has to wonder why that act was not done. The one reasonable deduction is because those articles did not actually support the claims or did not even exist. You forgot the one time that I did your homework for you and the article that you named was not be to found. I posted the search link that I used and you did not seem to find anything wrong about it.Now you are just being insulting. Get real.
Which is, of course, one of their biggest problems.Creationism is close minded, and starts with an answer, then looks for facts to support their conclusions.
Their are LOTS of scientists who are Hindu, Buddhist, Confucianist, Daoist, Shinto, Sikh, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Pagan, Wicca, etc..No, it's absolutely ridiculous. To say someone can't be a scientist because of thier religious views? That's discrimination.
The name of the article is: (Zildjian A.) "Australopithecus afarensis two sexes or two species."No, you were being insulting. When a person makes claims that he should be able to support, and when you claimed that there were specific articles you should have been able to quote and link them, and then that person does not provide the needed quotes and links one has to wonder why that act was not done. The one reasonable deduction is because those articles did not actually support the claims or did not even exist. You forgot the one time that I did your homework for you and the article that you named was not be to found. I posted the search link that I used and you did not seem to find anything wrong about it.
When you make claims in an online debate you need to be able to support those claims properly. One tacitly admits that one is wrong when one does not properly support claims.
I'm very much a defender of the Gospel of Love.Well science could use a lot of thinkers like you.
When it comes to the defense of the Gospel, you're the conscious objector, aren't you?
Their are LOTS of scientists who are Hindu, Buddhist, Confucianist, Daoist, Shinto, Sikh, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Pagan, Wicca, etc..
The vast majority of them leave their religious traditions, ideologies and dogma at the door to their laboratory, excavation site, or university.
I would imagine you would be one of the first ones in line if you thought a Hindu was trying to force your kids into learning science that was replete with references to his gods.
Fortunately, Hindu scientists aren't likely to do that. Christian creationists on the other hand ...
That's not what I read. He's correct to say that a scientist follows the evidence that's in front of them. A scientist needs to be agnostic and not take their religious believes with them in their studies. Otherwise their results will be influenced.No, it's absolutely ridiculous. To say someone can't be a scientist because of thier religious views? That's discrimination.
That's nice.I'm very much a defender of the Gospel of Love.
Actually it does mean that it does not exist. Anything published in a well respected professional journal can be found with that information.The name of the article is: (Zildjian A.) "Australopithecus afarensis two sexes or two species."
And no, I didn't find it online. Apparently, everything has to be online or it doesn't exist now?
Apparently it's part of: "hominid evolution, past present and future." pp. 213-220
In what way?Otherwise their results will be influenced.
In the loop or out, we came from the dust of the earth; not the seed of an animal.
Are you talking about the Hindu scientist who left his religion at the door?You just assume they would let their views tell them what the evidence meant? Then, you are pre disposed to discriminate against them because of their religious view, and the problem is with you.
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?