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.
Dawkins stated himself that the bottom line is that no one knows the origin of cells. Are there differing viewpoints that i should be aware of, or is what he stated a reliable conclusion? And the complexity of cells? It was stated by several scientists that cells are complex, yes galaxies and galaxies complex. i will get the names of the scientists when i watch the video again....
Are those scientists incorrect to say that a cell is complex to that degree?
An implosion of matter.No you don't.
What caused the Big Bang? Magic?
That would be abiogenesis.What caused the first inorganic molecule to become a living organism? Magic?
Why do you think they would?How come massive objects don't fall on eachother by their gravity? Magic man?
Newton was also an alchemist... did you have a point?"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687
If your answer to every question is "god did it" then yes you are not jumping nearly high enough.it almost appears you are holding hoops up and stating that Susa is not jumping high enough. :o
If your answer to every question is "god did it" then yes you are not jumping nearly high enough.
You aren't even trying.
Too true, but it looks like brinny is genuinely interested in learning some actual facts about evolution, and is smart enough to tell the teachers from the trolls.
Let's not get distracted.
Yes it most definitely was. And the idiot lady who was in charge of sterilizing people using "The Origin of Life" as her reasoning, went on to found "Planned Parenthood." when she was outed by the doctors that she made sterilize them.
Do you know who Richard Dawkins is?
you do realize his writings have been put on the dusty shelf of antiquity? It's lost any credibility it once had. Nevertheless, give me a solid reason i should read it.
Now you know how alot of atheists feel...
Too true, but it looks like brinny is genuinely interested in learning some actual facts about evolution, and is smart enough to tell the teachers from the trolls.
Let's not get distracted.
Agreed.
BTW, do you have any idea how similiar "The Origin of Species" and "Mein Kampf" in the original language are? Do you think I just pulled that out of thin air? (-:
How pleasant...
Bye bye friends.
Evolution IS a fact. We're still discovering how it works. Assembling and strengthening the Theory of Evolution.Dawkins seemed a bit confused when he stated emphatically that evolution is a fact.
He's a scientist. He has to admit lots and lots of things are possible. He has to admit there might be a statue of a camel at the center of Mars. Possible does not mean plausible, reasonable, or worth an iota of consideration. The ID movement is rooted in an emotional need to feel constructed by the divine. It isn't science. Dawkins said ID was possible, but he also said it could have been any number of things that aren't supernatural, like Aliens, or some prior intelligent species. There is no evidence for any of that, but it's possible.In addition, he has stated that intelligent design is possible.
Now you've spoilt it for them, you have explained it so they can really understand it, they have no excuse but to abandon this op as lost, but will they? of course not, they will continue as if your post had never been written, or they will say, yes but no but you don't understand, you've got it all wrong because they didn't mean that, or they will say it's complete rubbish, and then they will leave.He's a scientist. He has to admit lots and lots of things are possible. He has to admit there might be a statue of a camel at the center of Mars. Possible does not mean plausible, reasonable, or worth an iota of consideration. The ID movement is rooted in an emotional need to feel constructed by the divine. It isn't science. Dawkins said ID was possible, but he also said it could have been any number of things that aren't supernatural, like Aliens, or some prior intelligent species. There is no evidence for any of that, but it's possible.
Now you've spoilt it for them, you have explained it so they can really understand it, they have no excuse but to abandon this op as lost, but will they? of course not, they will continue as if your post had never been written, or they will say, yes but no but you don't understand, you've got it all wrong because they didn't mean that, or they will say it's complete rubbish, and then they will leave.
The biggest problem I encounter is that many people think that you cannot accept evolution and still believe in God. That is an outright lie!
It's not a problem for you that TE teaches we are mutant copy-errors, made in God's image?The biggest problem I encounter is that many people think that you cannot accept evolution and still believe in God.
It's not a problem for you that TE teaches we are mutant copy-errors, made in God's image?
This is one of the most honest posts I've seen an evolutionist make.Science continues to pull back the curtain on God, most reasonable scientists can't attribute anything to him other than possibly being the prime mover in the big bang, and why add one step of complexity?
God does not fit into a reasonable view of the universe. Being a scientist by day and religious at night and on Sunday is like a policeman that works all day to uphold the law and then goes home and beats his wife and snorts cocaine. Unfortunately no one can honestly have it both ways.
This is one of the most honest posts I've seen an evolutionist make.
I agree with you --- God and evolution don't mix.
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?
