Reply With Quote
Being a possible explanation is not the same as a working theory.
Because his teachings that are placed in there are placed at the discretion of his disciples. So you say I can't critique what he stands for when it has already been done.
With the removal of any reference to God, Jesus' mantra becomes one of love. I can apreciate that.If his mantra is based on being God, it's kind of strange to believe his teachings without believing him. And in your example the crazy man is articulating something you already believe in. Thus his "mantra" is simply an expression of something you already think. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would assume that you see the Bible as something that can teach you and help you understand new things. Two totally unrelated situations.
Teaching the bible to understand new things? No. I find little of value in the bible.
Being a possible explanation is not the same as a working theory.
They are quite easily explained by evolution. The best design wins. If something lead to a compe ive edge, that something will be passed on.
At some point, nano pumps were an advantage over cells that didn't have them.
"But then why don't we have lungs that breathe methane, if it is all random?"
Because, quite simply, if your lungs are better suited for methane than oxygen/nitrogen, you will not live long enough to reproduce.
Yup.
It might be possible that super-strong kung-fu hamsters who eat gasoline are responsible for moving my car when I turn the ignition key. This "theory" doesn't fit much with the observed reality of internal combustion engines.
Why make the comment that you believe in Jesus' teachings if you throw out 90% of it? Basically, you've distilled the Bible down to a few phrases about love and happiness that could've been taken from any religion. I'm pretty sure Buddhists believe in love as well.
And I still maintain that it's pointless to pick out a small percentage of something to believe in and then try to claim that you rely on those for any semblance of understanding life. Why not just write down the things you believe in, make your own bible, and not even worry about the real Bible? If you're just picking out a few sections, it's essentially the same thing.
So he had the whole crystal ball thing going on, eh? I'll bet if he could have looked a thousand+ years ahead and seen the Crusades, he would have been one of a carpenter, and never spoken before a crowd. If he could see that coming, I have no use for him or his teachings. They would be a fraud.
Been done already. See: Gospels, purging of. What you are reading is what some early Pope thought you should, editing out controversial parts.And I still maintain that it's pointless to pick out a small percentage of something to believe in and then try to claim that you rely on those for any semblance of understanding life.
You didn't touch the part I wanted you to and instead focused on telling me what I should say and what I shoudln't say. Ok.
If you want me to hear my opinion on a certain part of what you posted, it would be really helpful to stick a question mark in there somewhere. I'm not a mind reader.
You didn't touch the part I wanted you to and instead focused on telling me what I should say and what I shoudln't say. Ok.
Why are they a fraud? Bad stuff happens. If God fixed everything bad before it happened the entire world would be perfect. Would you really want to live in a perfect world? Without bad stuff, how do you know what's good? Put it this way, would you rather everything tasted exactly the same or some stuff good and some stuff bad? And don't try to blame the Crusades on God, men have perverted religion to justify wars since time began.
What you are reading is a compilation of individual books which have not been edited. They were also compiled by Catholic priests, not the Pope, and they included the books which appeared to be accurate historically. People have also looked back and added in books they missed. Granted, there are other apocryphal books out there, but they tend to contradict known historical evidence or directly conflict with the general consensus of the books that belong in the Bible.
Science haters swear like Evolution is the only science out there.................gene sequencing isn't a philosophy nor are the nano pumps and valves and engines of the cell... they aren't explained by natural selection or evolution.
If you want answers to those try reading up on some Biology and maybe some Chemistry.
Great post. This is so obvious that I can't believe this topic is even debated and discussed in the courts and by the president.
Unreal.
Where did the design originate?
Well, if you listen to Art Bell for a week you could gather enough theories to fill more than a few textbooks.
Random variances based on previous forms, all the way back to the "primordial" soup.
can something come out of nothing?
just asking..
"can something come out of nothing? "
This is the 100th anniversary of AE's e = mc-squared.
energy (nothing) and matter, are interchangeable, back and forth.
there was always something starting with the Big Bang.
Vedantic cosmology says there have been 40 Big Bangs, IIRC. the oscillating universe.
Intelligent design itself must have something coming form nothing at some point unless you discount a linear philosphy of thinking and disregard any begining. Of course, by doing that you can just as easily allow for a universe that has always been without intelligent design.
An elective would be a good idea Spur but I believe those opposed to it being taught would argue separation of Church and State if were put into the Philosophy category.
All theories have something coming from nothing...unless, of course, you've seen some research on the origins of matter that pre-date the Big Bang.
The point of "non-religious" intelligent design is two-fold; explaining how something came from nothing and explaining obvious informational design features such as the DNA sequence. Their premise lies in the belief that information doesn't just appear and that cogent information cannot just evolve. To suggest evolution is responsible for genetic code is akin to saying William Hung typed a bunch of ones and zeroes into a computer and Microsoft Windows emerged.
Serious ID scientists don't even consider the theological implications of intelligent design, they merely seek to explain what could cause a phenomenon that is most readily ascribed to intelligence, not cause and effect.
Comparitive religion and other religious based themes are already taught in Philosophy classes, and there hasn't seemed to be any trouble.
And how far does Itelligent design go to explain how the intelligence behind it was created? To continue your analogy, if Bill Gates wrote Microsoft Windows, who created Bill Gates? Intelligent Design of Intelligent Design?
Why is there air???(Bill Cosby)
One step at a time...it is, after all, a theory.
The point is that the very flaw intelligent design is intended to account for is inherent in intelligent design.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions