-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Why evolution should not be a religious issue
- Thread starter Strathos
- Start date
Neatz
Active Member
- Dec 8, 2016
- 111
- 86
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Nobody likes a show-off!
Wow, you guys had that posted a year and a half ago. Nice work. It's just the way it was worded, but I DO still get creeped out a little by the 'running penny'.
As far as your question about taking the scientists to the POTA movie, my answer is easy ......................
................................no.
Sorry.
My Brain Hurts.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,201
- 52,658
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
LOL ... no problem.As far as your question about taking the scientists to the POTA movie, my answer is easy ......................
................................no.
Sorry.
My Brain Hurts.
The answer is:
It's cheaper to take two scientists once.
You'll only buy three tickets!
Upvote
0
Neatz
Active Member
- Dec 8, 2016
- 111
- 86
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
But what if the scientists were from the future, when the apes had evolved, and taken over? And one was an orangutan?LOL ... no problem.
The answer is:
It's cheaper to take two scientists once.
You'll only buy three tickets!
Upvote
0
I'd a given a lower number of certainty but hard to gauge it when there is no standard outside of math either. Actually, it would be nearly impossible to create a standard outside of math.
Upvote
0
sfs
Senior Member
- Jun 30, 2003
- 10,850
- 7,869
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
A confluence of reasons. I was a staff scientist, not faculty, so I didn't have job security. I wanted to move back to the East Coast of the US for family reasons, and there was little particle physics taking place locally here. More broadly, the action was clearly going to be moving to Europe soon, and progress in the field as a whole had slowed to a crawl. Meanwhile, genetics was about to boom -- it was the era of the human genome project, and computational/math/data people were being welcomed in. It was a great decision.
Upvote
0
If there's no Tyr, then there's no Tuesday
If there's no Wotan, then there's no Wednesday.
If there's no Thor, then there's no Thursday.
If there's no Frige, then there's no Friday.
A godless universe in no way implies the non-existence of the emotional states associated with happiness
Not as much as using the etymology of a word to associate it with archaic meanings that fell out of common use better than three centuries ago, in order to score points in an online debate.
That would just be ludicrous.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Plenty to see. Too bad that you do not have the ability to see it.
But then so far you have been all talk and no action. I would be glad to help you to understand the relatively simple concept of scientific evidence. If you could learn at least that you would be a better debater.
Upvote
0
Can you show me where he's made this claim?
Holding an atheist position is not the same as making the claim there is no God. I'm an atheist, and I don't make that claim. I've just failed to be convinced of the existence of the Abrahimic God, or any other god concept for that matter.
Similarly, holding an position in opposition to Biblical literalism is also not a claim there is no God. Otherwise all the Catholic priests that educated me made claims abut non-existence of God as well. I'm fairly sure they were believers.[/QUOTE]
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
I am not sure that he will let himself learn. He got mad when I pointed out the same error that you did and he went downhill from there.
Upvote
0
Still nothing here but untruthful taunts that get us nowhere.
Only discussing what you choose as fit for discussion is a bit one sided, and can only lead to a one sided, useless conclusion. So, it's not a matter of ability to see, it's a matter of only discussing what you want seen and avoiding the rest. No doubt that would be fine with you, but the results would be unrealistic/worthless.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Nope, I don't have to be untruthful, I am not a creationist.
If you want to discuss something that is fine with me. You only have to be able to support what you discuss. That means you need to find valid sources that support your claims.
Why are you here if you don't want to learn? You don't seem to know enough to support your beliefs.
Upvote
0
Radrook
Well-Known Member
- Feb 25, 2016
- 11,539
- 2,726
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
What I personally believe about an ID is exactly as described by the people I quoted and which you accuse as being both cunning and insincere. You sarcastically question their sincerity and you presumptuously question mine. That is rude as well as typically atheistic behavior.
Upvote
0
Radrook
Well-Known Member
- Feb 25, 2016
- 11,539
- 2,726
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
The subject is whether evolution should be ignored because it is irrelevant to a belief in a creator. That depends on whether theistic or atheistic evolution is being proposed. The concept taught in schools is totally atheistic. So naturally parents who teach their kids about an ID would be concerned.
Upvote
0
Yeah, but as subjects often go, this one has gone different directions throughout the thread.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
