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.
Atheists quote from atheist websites.
The quotes that are used and don't mention a creator must be assumed to be of atheistic sources.
Come to think of it, my computer manual doesnt mention god. My manual for my car doesnt mention god. My instruction book for my television and refrigerator dont mention god. They all must have been designed and assembled by atheists.Today I learned that the tax code and cookbooks are both assumed to be atheistic sources - after all, neither of them reference god(s) when talking about their particular subjects.
Is the creationist view of god so small that it disappears if it isn't constantly mentioned?
Come to think of it, my computer manual doesnt mention god. My manual for my car doesnt mention god. My instruction book for my television and refrigerator dont mention god. They all must have been designed and assembled by atheists.
I'm guessing you didn't mean it this way but did you really mean to say science is at odds with common sense?
The quotes that are used and don't mention a creator must be assumed to be of atheistic sources.
Otherwise theory would at least acknowledge the possibility of an ID.
Tell me, can modern astronomy be described as neutral in its depiction of the universe?
Or can it be inferred from its general approach to be promoting atheism?
Just as I think it is to tag any source that uses that same anti ID modus operandi under the same category.
That's because those books aren't about a subject that is very relevant to an ID. So one assumes that no mention of an ID will be made because it is irrelevant in the context of tax books or other such literatuire. That is a silly comparison or false analogy.Today I learned that the tax code and cookbooks are both assumed to be atheistic sources - after all, neither of them reference god(s) when talking about their particular subjects.
Is the creationist view of god so small that it disappears if it isn't constantly mentioned?
That's because those books aren't about a subject that is very relevant to an ID. So one assumes that no mention of an ID will be made because it is irrelevant in the context of tax books or other such literatuire. That is a silly comparison or false analogy.
First, science ceases to be science when it becomes prejudicially myopic and refuses to seriously consider an alternative because of anti religious sentiments. Science is objective and once it loses that objectivity it cannot be called science any longer.And a-alien source. And a-unicorn sources. And a-santa sources. And a-anything-your-imagination-can-produce source.
Why would any theory acknowledge anything for which zero evidence exists?
It can be described as scientific.
No. If it "promotes" anything, it is the search for knowledge according to the scientific method. It is not the fault of science that god doesn't show up in the processes that it studies.
Science?
You don't think the Spaghetti Monster could be the one tinkering with those biological structures which evolution can't produce?Finally, your comparison of the ID with such things as a spaghetti monster is a false analogy since there is no evidence for a spaghetti monster...
Be careful, if you wind up claiming that everything is designed you are in danger of becoming a theistic evolutionist.... whereas the evidence for the ID- for which you claim a seemingly inherent incapacity to see, is virtually everywhere.
First, science ceases to be science when it becomes prejudicially myopic and refuses to seriously consider an alternative because of anti religious sentiments. Science is objective and once it loses that objectivity it cannot be called science any longer.
Second, yes, a view that is constantly ignoring an very compelling alternate explanation and chooses to focus on its opposite is promoting its opposite via cunning omission.
Third, there certainly is plenty of very compelling evidence which is tagged as non-evidence by atheists because they cannot stomach the idea of an ID.
Finally, your comparison of the ID with such things as a spaghetti monster is a false analogy since there is no evidence for a spaghetti monster whereas the evidence for the ID- for which you claim a seemingly inherent incapacity to see, is virtually everywhere.
When you said "There is genetic material in bone and there are elements present in the soil or earth which constitute our bodies."So why did you assume that I did not? Also, what is flawed about the argument I presented?
This sounded like someone claiming in a round about way that man evolved from the dirt by scientific old age processes or something. As long as we all have the context that what you are saying is from the standpoint of an actual believer, it would be easier to get it right.Or did you expect him to go into fine scientific details concerning his procedure to a people who would be baffled by the details if he did?
First, science ceases to be science when it becomes prejudicially myopic and refuses to seriously consider an alternative because of anti religious sentiments.
Science is objective and once it loses that objectivity it cannot be called science any longer.
Second, yes, a view that is constantly ignoring an very compelling alternate explanation and chooses to focus on its opposite is promoting its opposite via cunning omission.
Third, there certainly is plenty of very compelling evidence which is tagged as non-evidence by atheists because they cannot stomach the idea of an ID.
Finally, your comparison of the ID with such things as a spaghetti monster is a false analogy since there is no evidence for a spaghetti monster whereas the evidence for the ID- for which you claim a seemingly inherent incapacity to see, is virtually everywhere.
That's because those books aren't about a subject that is very relevant to an ID.
So one assumes that no mention of an ID will be made because it is irrelevant in the context of tax books or other such literatuire. That is a silly comparison or false analogy.
First, science ceases to be science when it becomes prejudicially myopic and refuses to seriously consider an alternative because of anti religious sentiments.
You don't think the Spaghetti Monster could be the one tinkering with those biological structures which evolution can't produce?
Nope, but you're wrong to say it's analogous to a human language.
"...cell language has molecular counterparts to 10 of 13 design features of human language....suggesting an isomorphism" (emphasis mine)
That, clearly, doesn't say what you are pretending it says. While it says there may be similarities between processes and structures, it does not say they are identical or that they are the result of a common development.
That it was analogous to human language was exactly the point of the paper.
It could if it was built up a little bit at a time over millions of years with constant feedback.
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?