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.
Jim jones also never produced any useful results, yet evolution has given an understanding thats lead to advancments in medicine, embryology (i probably spelled that wrong too) it predicted the nested hiarichy, if its just a scam how did it produce all these results?You understood sort of. Jim Jones wasn't trying to purposely scam anyone, he just twisted the truth, but believed in what he was doing, and every twist he dreamed up, as did his followers, right to the end.
Come to think of it, that was a much better comparison then even I first thought.
And I'm sure if we went over his apocalyptic teachings together we would probably be able to discern those twisted points and agree why they were wrong, or just from his imaginings...You understood sort of. Jim Jones wasn't trying to purposely scam anyone, he just twisted the truth, but believed in what he was doing, and every twist he dreamed up, as did his followers, right to the end.
Come to think of it, that was a much better comparison then even I first thought.
That's the problem with a non-rigorous definition of "human" it isn't reliable as a tell of human from "animal". How do you deal with the very young, the very sick and the very injured? No longer human?I am not trying to give a rigorous definition to "human", and my goal is only to tell "human" from non-human, which I collectively call it "animal". This line of argument can easily defeat the shameless claim made by many evolutionists that human is only another animal. Indeed, only judged by genetics and morphology, it could be a very reasonable claim. And that is the most serious problem to me about evolution.
But why should I assume your interpretation of that book as superior to consistent, useful tools that come from studying genetics and morphology?And the caviar is: The Bible has answered the hardest part of this unanswered scientific problem right in the Genesis 2. Like it or not, this is simply miraculous.
But why should I assume your interpretation of that book as superior to consistent, useful tools that come from studying genetics and morphology?
. Science only deals with natural phenomena. If you don’t understand that then you simply don’t understand science! So what the Bible says or any other religious tome says is simply irrelevant to understanding science.Simple. Because by all means you have, you can not give an answer to the question. But the Bible CAN give one sentence, and it answers, no matter you accept it or not.
Except Jim Jones was totally wrong and mainly self-aggrandizing, while biologists are mostly right and interested in truth rather than ego.You understood sort of. Jim Jones wasn't trying to purposely scam anyone, he just twisted the truth, but believed in what he was doing, and every twist he dreamed up, as did his followers, right to the end.
Come to think of it, that was a much better comparison then even I first thought.
I see, we're now skipping the preliminaries and jumping right to "You don't understand"?
Another catch all cop out comment that's not proven to mean a thing....one of your greatest strengths.
Yes, one is a devout christian and the other is a somewhat bitter atheist. Funny and witty though.I've never heard of Ken Miller before. Francis Collins, yes, though I don't think he has quite the same profile that someone like Dawkins has.
I could give you a list of Catholic scientists (not including Ken Miller, apparently), but again, none of them are really household names in the same way.
Well, no. When a scientist makes claims about how favorable or hostile the modern state of science is to religion, they are stepping outside of their field and commenting on theology instead.
If their goal is to promote atheism rather than science, then they don't have to be cautious about this, but if they hope to improve trust in science, it's a problem they ought to keep in mind.
I don't.
But the topic of this thread revolves around why people fail to accept evolution, and I think this is a factor.
I am bemused that multiple atheists here have taken me for a raving Creationist for criticizing Dawkins, though.
I, a creationist, define human according to properties given by God. For a living human: a life who can tell good from evil. For a dead human: those who are able to link to human-level intelligence.
This definition is much better, more clear and more useful than those used by evolutionist.
That is a good question. I can not give an inclusive definition. But I can give many examples, such as raise fire, wear clothes, drill holes, etc.
A drop in selection pressure to continue having functional eyes.How exactly does this happen? There are no 'holes' in the theory but plenty in the math.
I work with people who will literally stuff so much food in thier mouth, they will suffocate and die if unsupervised while eating. And out in the world these people are abused beacuse they dont know. Trust me the musing of good and evil are lost on them.I believe they still can tell good from evil to a certain degree.
I work with people who will literally stuff so much food in thier mouth, they will suffocate and die if unsupervised while eating. And out in the world these people are abused beacuse they dont know. Trust me the musing of good and evil are lost on them.
Maybe im out of the loop but who are all these major scientist that are anti-theistic? I can only think of one and im not sure i even classify him as antithestic.
I was in pre creation, before the Big Bang. I had crossed over the beginning of time / the First Word/the First vibration. I was in the Eye of Creation. I felt as if I was touching the Face of God. It was not a religious feeling. Simply I was at one with Absolute Life and Consciousness. When I say that I could see or perceive forever, I mean that I could experience all of creation generating itself. It was without beginning and without end. That’s a mind-expanding thought, isn’t it? Scientists perceive the Big Bang as a single event that created the Universe. I saw during my life after death experience that the Big Bang is only one of an infinite number of Big Bangs creating Universes endlessly and simultaneously. The only images that even come close in human terms would be those created by super computers using fractal geometry equations.
The thing is though, most people who know Dawkins, know him as an atheistic ranter and / or science popularizer. Both of which are like a second carreer for him. If he would have truelly retired after his work as a biologist, you likely wouldn't know him, just like you don't know who Miller is.
So the point is: Dawkins isn't exactly a celebrity because of his work in biology - not directly, anyway.
Again, people like Krauss and Dawkins are just responding to creationist movements. If it weren't for such movements, they'ld feel no need to do such things.
What they try to promote, is rationality and intellectual scepticism. It seems you're saying that their strategy might be wrong. Perhaps.
Then I guess, you're not one of those people who will turn on science because of the "attacks" on religious fundamentalism these science popularizers engage in.
Disagree. They rejected evolution already before they heared atheistic science rants.
Do you think that's what I did?
They wouldnt understand that question.Try to ask them whether we should murder.
Then, if we could, ask a chimp the same question (I don't think a chimp could understand the question).
They wouldnt understand that question.
He is also a bit of a jerk. I was banned from his site years ago for daring to question one of his claims.Oh that's right. I keep forgetting how virulently anti-Christian he is.
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?