Reply With Quote
Evolution Right Under Our Noses
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/sc...pagewanted=all
Yes you do, to convince them. From their own source. They aren't going to believe science.don't need Cain to prove that theory wrong.
Evolution Right Under Our Noses
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/sc...pagewanted=all
It's either divine inspiration or it's not.
Most people?Most people believe "in His own image" meant free will.
I think that's the first time Ive heard that line.
I'm going to call b.s. on "most people"
No it doesn't at all. It shows how I view the Bible.Just shows how limited you view the world, there.
Either all the magic in it is true, or it's all .
Says you. The Bible says different.Hard for Man. See above. God gave his Word, and has left it to Man to figure out what to do with it.
Frankly, I think both of you are wrong.
Science isn't something you believe in, it's not a matter of faith. You simply can't pack together Science with Religion, as they're two different things. Science is something you or somebody else tests and proves true or false, or that you propose and wait for you or other people to test in order to prove true or false. Once you've been tested, it either holds or not. There can be expectations, but you can never go around the fact that your proposal will be tested.
Because I'm not interested in theology.
So you think it might be a distant cousin?
Who the cares what they believe?
I just want them to keep it to themselves.
Divine inspiration is not the same as divinely written.
Okay, perhaps I should say every Christian I've ever talked to and every study Bible I've ever owned.
Never seen anything in the Bible that contradicts that, although granted it could depend on which Bible you are looking at. One Bible I have basically says that God = Satan.
Very distant, past being a descendant of Adam.
How many other people are you bigoted against?
in this case it is.
an omniscient God would not inspire a dumbass to write an inaccurate version of the Bible.
shows how limited your view of Christianity is, tbh.Okay, perhaps I should say every Christian I've ever talked to and every study Bible I've ever owned.
great. It really is irrelevant though.
Irrelevant to the topic at hand. If you are calling me a bigot, just do so.
I'm prejudiced against ignorant, stupid people pushing selfish, stupid agendas on the general populace. Intelligent design is just such an agenda.
Not really. God is known to test His creations, so it's perfectly reasonably that he would allow people to be inaccurate. Plus, like I said before, what most of the world reads as the Bible is the work of 10 or more men, only the first of which would necessarily have truly been divinely inspired.
Meh. I've talked to a wide variety of flavors of Christians, and it's been unanimous that "His own image" means free will and reasoning capability.
Granted, few people I've talked to about it have been literalists, and those few I did talk to changed their minds about literalism.
Anyone that pays attention would understand that if there is really a god, he is definitely not a micro-manager.
The majority I've met don't assign a gender to God. They speak of Him in the masculine because the convention (as descended from a patriarchal society) is that an unknown gender is treated as male.
Granted, that's very different than in the past, where the belief of God as male played a role in creating the patriarchal society. That probably had a lot to do with basically every preceeding religion the Hebrews had interacted with had a masculine head deity, and not just a few words in the Bible.
No, it's not reasonable at all to assume that a perfect, loving God would allow for inaccuracies in such an important life and death message.
the first of 10 men?Plus, like I said before, what most of the world reads as the Bible is the work of 10 or more men, only the first of which would necessarily have truly been divinely inspired.
that makes no sense.
K, I know of nobody like that myself and a google entry of "god own image" pulls up all physical characteristic references on the first page.Meh. I've talked to a wide variety of flavors of Christians, and it's been unanimous that "His own image" means free will and reasoning capability.
There is also nothing in the Bible anywhere that would directly relate "own image" to the horrible Biblical paradox of "free will".
Except that God, per the Old Testament, is known to be a rather sadistic deity
See previous post about how many times the Bible has been adapted and translated from the original source...
lol. You actually googled? I'd never take you seriously enough to google.
Zephaniah 3:17Except that God, per the Old Testament, is known to be a rather sadistic deity
King James Version (KJV)
17 The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing.
18 lol j/k #God
the 10th person claiming divine inspiration in translation has exactly the same amount of believability as the 1st.See previous post about how many times the Bible has been adapted and translated from the original source...
lol, I google all the time. It's a quick and easy way to expose bull .lol. You actually googled? I'd never take you seriously enough to google.
then why worship him?Except that God, per the Old Testament, is known to be a rather sadistic deity
You have developed all of your emotions through evolution. Each one proves some sort of evolutionary advantage. Supers ion is one of them.
To believe in 'God,' as some sort of thing that doesn't assume the pattern of physics as we know it, and that this omnipotent being is concerned with a planet so insignificant, is really a sign of close-mindedness.
To believe in ID over evolution can only be based on a lack of knowledge in science. To believe in ID, is another sign of close-mindedness, in that you're so far in denial, that you refuse to accept fact. The Theory of Evolution is fact. It is supported by evidence.
The basis of science in general, is to make educated theories based on evidence and testing. That theory, then becomes what we abide by until proven wrong by other evidence.
I have to point this out before everyone else jumps on it. It is still a theory and has not been elevated to "law" status.
"Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.) "
"What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
Who said it was an either-or proposition? My mind is open to both being true. you don't need to lecture anyone else about open-mindedness since you've already closed your mind to one possibility.
Let me say it again. Evolution is fact.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
