- Jul 18, 2017
- 251
- 73
- Country
- Germany
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
You should choose a different bandersnatch. It looks unsocial and that is not how I would describe you
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.
It's one artist's interpretation of a Bandersnatch.
When I hear of the word "Bandersnatch" I think of Niven's concept. Of course he got the name from Carroll. His bandersnatch looked more like a giant Shmoo than any other creature that I can think of:It's one artist's interpretation of a Bandersnatch.
It's ironic. But if you think you can describe someone based on a few forum posts, you're mistaken.You should choose a different bandersnatch. It looks unsocial and that is not how I would describe you
So in what part of the video does Dawkins reject the WAP ?I let myself be tricked I was shown only part of the video, sorry.
So in what part of the video does Dawkins reject the WAP ?
But if you think you can describe someone based on a few forum posts, you're mistaken.
That's not even saying that other people reject it.He says something like he can understand why people find it unsatisfying.
The Frumious Bandersnatchi were an example of ID. They were life that were created by an ancient race in Niven's Known Space, a series that I highly recommend. You can learn about the basics of the Bandersnatchi here, a warning if you ever plan to read the series there are spoilers a plenty in the article:You defintly increased the list of non-functional entities in the universeMy 500 meter tree was lame in comparision.
They were life that were created by an ancient race in Niven's Known Space, a series that I highly recommend.
Some of the physics of this universe seems to be preprogrammed to create life. What is your favourite argument against such a line of thought? You can mention several arguments of course but I would like to know which one you prefere.
The theory of evolution is not an attempt to refute God. It only corrects some of the errors in Genesis.there has been a delusion coming from the angels of satan, let's say they have materialized fossils of prehistoric animals and humanlike creatures (that have actually never lived) along with prehistoric/paleontological sediments/layers and even aged them for thousands, millions and billions of years, let's say they have made many cosmic phenomena, and aged the matter of many cosmic bodies for millions and billions of years, let's say they have even made strange animals appear, whose anatomies testify to the existence of long biological evolution..., let's say they have done all this along with many other things only in order to mislead as many humans as possible that there is no true God...
Blessings
there has been a delusion coming from the angels of satan
Blessings
'Nuff said.Judging people is always an arkward undertaking. I thought I understood people with which I lived decades and I was neverteless wrong.
The theory of evolution is not an attempt to refute God. It only corrects some of the errors in Genesis.
It's really just English politeness.... I am overjoyed when I find someone behaving remotely human.
It's really just English politeness.
We are not talking about "on the part of the true God" we are talking about the Bible. And it has flaws galore.how can there be errors on the part of the true God?!, if you were (in the place of) the system Administrator/Provider of life, would you cause there to be a long, idiotic(vain) evolution for millions and billions of years, given that the souls must be provided with abundant and eternal life as soon as possible, because every passing year without there being such a life for them can only harm/damage their chance to have it for a longer time (let's say they could be born and exist in the form of idiotic monstrous predators eating one another instead of having abundant and eternal life in Paradise for much or most of the time of the eternity)?!
Blessings
It might be valid. But then again it might not be needed at all. If the "fine tuned" aspects turn out to be necessities then the argument falls apart that way too.Back to the subject: there is nobody who picked the multiverse as favourite argument against fine tuning?
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?