Victory for evolution in Texas

[Proxy]

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.

How have I closed my mind? And to what possibility? God? I gave "God" an honest chance long ago. I'm sure I know more about your religion, as an Atheist, than you do as a "Christian."

I took the side that has evidence, among other things.

[Proxy]

I think it's safe for me to do this

/thread

[DarrinS]

How have I closed my mind? And to what possibility? God? I gave "God" an honest chance long ago. I'm sure I know more about your religion, as an Atheist, than you do as a "Christian."

I took the side that has evidence, among other things.

Belief in God doesn't make someone a Christian.

[Proxy]

Belief in God doesn't make someone a Christian.

what is your definition of God?

[DarrinS]

what is your definition of God?

Its evolving as I grow older.

[Proxy]

Its evolving as I grow older.

You're avoiding any real response. It's okay to admit you're wrong, and embrace science.

[DarrinS]

You're avoiding any real response. It's okay to admit you're wrong, and embrace science.

What do you think about famous scientists who believe in God?

[DarrinS]

By the way, I consider athiests about as intellectually curious as the young-earth creationists they openly mock.

[Proxy]

What do you think about famous scientists who believe in God?

I think they have a different definition of the word god, or they're lying, or they're idiots. Being famous is an irrelevant variable in this question.

If I were to call myself a God-believing Scientist, I may become famous too... among Christians. "Scientists" who want to say that religion can coexist, are playing upon the people who don't know anything about science and evolution anyways, imho.

By the way, I consider athiests about as intellectually curious as the young-earth creationists they openly mock.

I could agree on a curiosity level, but not on an intellectual level.

intellect
a : the power of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will : the capacity for knowledge

b : the capacity for rational or intelligent thought especially when highly developed

an atheist, usually, bases their lifestyle on fact, while a creationist usually bases their lifestyle on feeling and emotion.

[LnGrrrR]

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.

God's never wrong unless he's wrong on purpose!

I still think the only Christianity that really stood up was Calvinism. The unfortunate side effect is that it turns God into a real psychopath.

[DarrinS]

I think they have a different definition of the word god, or they're lying, or they're idiots. Being famous is an irrelevant variable in this question.

If I were to call myself a God-believing Scientist, I may become famous too... among Christians. "Scientists" who want to say that religion can coexist, are playing upon the people who don't know anything about science and evolution anyways, imho.

How about the guy who was head of the human genome project? During the course of that project, he converted from atheist to Christianity.

[LnGrrrR]

By the way, I consider athiests about as intellectually curious as the young-earth creationists they openly mock.

I find a good amount of atheists tend to have read more about religion than those who believe. *shrug*

[LnGrrrR]

How about the guy who was head of the human genome project? During the course of that project, he converted from atheist to Christianity.

You could point out a hundred million cases where some person converted from atheism to Christianity, and it wouldn't prove/disprove God's existence in the slightest.

I'm pretty sure His existence (or lack thereof) isn't based off popularity polls.

[ElNono]

How about the guy who was head of the human genome project? During the course of that project, he converted from atheist to Christianity.

You just proved his contention:

If I were to call myself a God-believing Scientist, I may become famous too... among Christians

[DarrinS]

You just proved his contention:

What's his name?

[ElNono]

What's his name?

I have no idea, but you seem to know a thing or two about him...

[Proxy]

Head of the human genome project.... I would want to know why he converted, and what his definition of "god" is.

Like I previously stated, it depends on their definition of the word. Even with him being a true christian... it doesn't make god any more real, like LnGrrrR said.

[Wild Cobra]

the first of 10 men?

that makes no sense.

Sure it does.

Moses wrote the first 5 books of the bible. Some or all of his writings were what Jehovah had given him. Not all writers had a direct connection with Jehovah.This is the first writing we know of the previous details before him. For all we know, the genealogy of Adam is passed down by memory, which could be very incomplete. There are some similar stories in other cultures. I think a few predate Moses, but they are not part of the Bible.

King David...

I believe he was often drunk, perhaps high on some native weed in his day. Does Psalms make much sense?

[Wild Cobra]

Let me say it again. Evolution is fact.

I don't think anyone here denies that. The questionable aspect of evolution is how did everything evolve without help. One spontaneous change at a time is understandable. Some things we find in nature would require several spontaneous changes at the same time, which make their existence by evolution alone a statistical impossibility.

[DarrinS]

You could point out a hundred million cases where some person converted from atheism to Christianity, and it wouldn't prove/disprove God's existence in the slightest.

I'm pretty sure His existence (or lack thereof) isn't based off popularity polls.

This is true. Merely pointing out that some scientists who have studied the minutiae of life's building blocks, have found faith (for whatever reason)).

[Proxy]

I don't think anyone here denies that. The questionable aspect of evolution is how did everything evolve without help. One spontaneous change at a time is understandable. Some things we find in nature would require several spontaneous changes at the same time, which make their existence by evolution alone a statistical impossibility.

Like what? I don't think you understand evolution or science to a capacity high enough to make that kind of claim.

[ElNono]

This is true. Merely pointing out that some scientists who have studied the minutiae of life's building blocks, have found faith (for whatever reason)).

More than one person 'studied the minutiae of life's building blocks', but so far you only pointed out one that adopted some form of faith. I'm sure there's more that went that route, and I'm sure there's scientists that went the opposite way (faith->non faith). I don't think you can really draw any conclusions from it, tbh.

[Winehole23]

Let me say it again. Evolution is fact.

Is it the core of biology as claimed upstream, and how so, please?

[Winehole23]

boutons tried, I must give credit, but it was pitiful.

[boutons_deux]

Give your own pitiful try, WH.