DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
- Jan 26, 2014
- 16,757
- 8,531
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
No. Rather as the rather inevitable cultural aspect of religion that it is.
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.
Like a virus?
Got a Big Bang theory, God spoke and there it was.
Oh no, wait a sec. That has to have an exclusively naturalistic cause to.
These discussions have nothing to do with normative adaptive evolution because if living creatures are fully formed by divine fiat it changes nothing about how living things adapt over time.
But when you dogmatically and facetiously argue for the exclusively naturalistic Darwinian tree of life mythology it's mutually exclusive.
BTW, evolution isn't a theory it a phenomenon in nature, whay you are calling a theory is the philosophy of natural history known as Darwinism.
I said exclusively naturalistic, aka a priori assumption, going all the way back to and including the Big Bang.
I'm first of all contradicting or correcting me isn't an actual argument, you being fallscious, just so you lnow, so don't blame me if I refuse to chase it in circles.
Secondly you don't want an alternative explanation for the origin of life
, that doesnt mean reason and the epistimology of history has no intellectual capacity or warrent to pursure they only alternative to the atheistic materialism of Darwinian naturaliztic assumptions.
Nothing in this thread has anything to do with evolutionary biology but you guys are going to argue venemously that we must call Darwinism evolution and equivocated Darwinism natural assumption with science and evolution,
And were the ones changing the meaning of words, classic fallacious, rhetorical projection.
I miss the days when you guys could at least write a little satire to go with your ad hominem taunts.
I discussed your points with my friend, a full professor of microbiology at a prominent university.First strawmanning a gigantic field of science into 2 silly paragraphs to make it sound absurd and invoking an argument from incredulity.
Awesome.
*Achievement unlocked: double fallacy*
Rigid, ha?
Tell me, are viruses alive?
During high school biology, I also learned about how the line between dead and alive isn't all that rigid as one might think, when it comes to microbiology
Just a meek, quiet question. You are involved in a discussion in CHRISTIAN Forums. You don't appear to be a Christian. Why are you here ? Is their a purpose for you being here ? Do you have any goal in mind related to your interactions with Christians ?No, you aren't.
What you do is ad hoc rationalization by re-inventing the scriptures and re-interpreting them. And even adding to them at times - like "Eden was on another planet" and stuff, lol
What is asserted without evidence, can be dissmissed without evidence.
And your science fiction-ish interpretation of your bible, is asserted without evidence.
Support your own nonsense. Live upto your burden of proof.
Don't ask me to do your homework.
Since most Creationists don't consider me to be a Christian, not a "real" one anyway, I feel qualified to answer that question. Keep in mind that under the rules of this forum participation by non-Christians is allowed.Just a meek, quiet question. You are involved in a discussion in CHRISTIAN Forums. You don't appear to be a Christian. Why are you here ? Is their a purpose for you being here ? Do you have any goal in mind related to your interactions with Christians ?
I've noticed a common theme when discussing things with creationists that words are often used out-of-context. This includes words like "theory", "evolution", "Darwinism", and so on.
I've also noticed the use of evolution or atheistic as an adjective to add to various other nouns describing various forms of knowledge. I think my favorite so far was "atheistic history".
What is the point of this? Having a (proper) conversation generally means using words as they apply to a specific context. Using incorrect contextual meanings and even worse, adopting private definitions of terms doesn't lead to meaningful discussion. And I've never understood the point of fighting over a definition, as I've seen more than a few times. Especially given either the contextual usage of a word or when there exists other words/terms that more accurately describe an idea.
I also wonder what other contexts this behavior occurs in. I imagine this must also come up with political discussions as well.
If, someone holds onto, say, the hypothesis of a steady state universe dogmatically ( you need to hunt them up, though what you do with dogma, other than whine about it, I don't know) and is so sure they are right, they make no effort to look at other models of the universe, their POSITION is sad, and their ATTITUDE is sad. Can you grasp that ? Do you have a beef with that ? Spit it out then.Your redefining what is stated, for your own dogmatic purposes is an old trick, still used, especially in the halls of a Jr. Hi school.That sentence literally makes ZERO sense.
If you don't know, then that means that there ARE NO explanations. So what are you talking about with the word "other"????
"i don't know" is also the exact opposite of a show-stopper position.
Just settling on some faith based unsupportable claim, like "god did it", THAT is what is the show stopper...............................
Especially if that position is being held dogmatically as part of some doctrine. Worse even, in fundamentalist religious circles, it even is so bad that not holding to that dogmatic position is a ticket to an eternal torture chamber.
I mean, for real dude......
So in your opinion, anyone without a phd in cosmology, particle physics, etc... is a sad person?
I don't want it taught in schools either, I think that is a red herring. Unless the Constitution is amended, a very arduous task, it won't happen.Since most Creationists don't consider me to be a Christian, not a "real" one anyway, I feel qualified to answer that question. Keep in mind that under the rules of this forum participation by non-Christians is allowed.
1. I believe in God as creator of the universe and author of our existence.
2. I accept the theory of evolution as a plausible, well-evidenced scientific theory which does not conflict with my belief in God. Atheists, of course, have no belief in God for it to be in conflict with.
3. I reject "biblical" creationism as ignorant nonsense.
4. I don't want biblical creationism and its theology taught in public schools or given more official standing in public policy decisions than other views.
Good.I don't want it taught in schools either, I think that is a red herring. Unless the Constitution is amended, a very arduous task, it won't happen.
Good. But in my experience your view is rare among creationists.I don;'t care what other people think about you being a Christian, that's between you and God.
Of course; in the beginning and continuously, on a different level of causality altogether than the mere natural causes which science studies.As to creationism and discussion I think your basic position needs to be refined.
Do you believe that God had involvement and action related to creation, at all ?
Not me--I'm not a Bible scholar. I am not qualified to make that determination unaided.Since you have decided that Biblical creationism is Biblical nonsense, you obviously have decided you can arbitrarily make that determination anywhere in the Bible you choose.
No need to get nasty. I belong to a recognized Christian denomination with a well-known body of doctrine, including the virgin birth of Christ, His miracles and His death and physical resurrection. You may take my position on these matters to be summed up by the Nicene Creed, which I subscribe to without reservation.That, of course, begs the question related to how much more you have decided is nonsense.
I assume that you believe the virgin birth fits in that category, Mary became pregnant by parthenogenesis, or worse, she broke the Jewish law with someone who broke it as well, and everyone just lied like a rug afterward.
Were the miracles of Christ nonsense, and the Resurrection as well ?
Sorry, I didn't intend to get nasty, I simply was drawing an assumption to a logical conclusion. I guess there was a reason why I told my employee's to never assume anything !Good.
Good. But in my experience your view is rare among creationists.
Of course; in the beginning and continuously, on a different level of causality altogether than the mere natural causes which science studies.
Not me--I'm not a Bible scholar. I am not qualified to make that determination unaided.
No need to get nasty. I belong to a recognized Christian denomination with a well-known body of doctrine, including the virgin birth of Christ, His miracles and His death and physical resurrection. You may take my position on these matters to be summed up by the Nicene Creed, which I subscribe to without reservation.
No harm done. I think what it is, is a logical conclusion based on a premise which doesn't apply to all Christians. Namely, that rejecting the literal historicity of Genesis inevitably puts one on a "slippery slope" leading to liberal apostasy. But if it's true at all, I think it can only be true for Protestants with their doctrine of Sola Scriptura. And watching the mainline Protestant denominations declining into oblivion would certainly give some credence to that view. Traditional Christians seem to have had much less theological difficulty dealing with modern science.Sorry, I didn't intend to get nasty, I simply was drawing an assumption to a logical conclusion. I guess there was a reason why I told my employee's to never assume anything !
If, someone holds onto, say, the hypothesis of a steady state universe dogmatically ( you need to hunt them up, though what you do with dogma, other than whine about it, I don't know) and is so sure they are right, they make no effort to look at other models of the universe, their POSITION is sad, and their ATTITUDE is sad.
I have some 65 observations by a PhD in astronomy, university professor, that will, in the least, make your boasting on this matter, tenuous.
I will post them in the right place when I can ( I will find the thread, and your post ).
I somehow don't think Protestants have a monopoly on Sola Scriptura.But if it's true at all, I think it can only be true for Protestants with their doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
Protestants invented it and I don't know of any other major Christian group who holds with it.I somehow don't think Protestants have a monopoly on Sola Scriptura.
And by way of a good example, have you talked to Colter lately?
(U.B. says it -- that settles it.)
No, they didn't.Protestants invented it and I don't know of any other major Christian group who holds with it.
LOL! That reminds me of another creationist poster around here who once tried to convince me that the Apostolic Fathers secretly believed in Sola Scriptura even though they taught something else.No, they didn't.
It was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation, but not their invention.
That's like saying Tertullian invented the Trinity.
They denature, in terms of the camp that views them as not being alive. Like how proteins denature, losing their properties, so too do viruses break down.I discussed your points with my friend, a full professor of microbiology at a prominent university.
There is controversy regarding viruses, as to whether they display all the criteria of a living organism, but they certainly die.
It is still quite well defined, even considering viruses, because viruses don't have a metabolism. I think the only reason people come to disagree with the idea that viruses aren't alive is due to the fact that they have more traits of living things than most non-living things do, but nevertheless, you can't be missing a couple of the qualifications for being alive and still be considered to be alive.He confirmed what I knew and havce stated.,
I discussed your points with my friend, a full professor of microbiology at a prominent university.
There is controversy regarding viruses, as to whether they display all the criteria of a living organism, but they certainly die.
Otherwise, in the world of microbiology, the line between living and non living is pretty well defined.
He confirmed what I knew and havce stated.,
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?