(June 19, 2017 at 12:55 am)snowtracks Wrote: Darwin believe in the existence of God; he would say 'dummies' to those who did this little act of effortful suppression. Everyone believes, get use to it because there's nothing one can do change that. 
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/...t_god.html

I am not going to discount a scientists work in the area of science due to his religious beliefs.

So long as any scientist can keep both faith and science separate, there is no cause for concern.

The same cannot be stated for creationism or intelligent design.

Quote:"intelligence is guiding towards an end point using preplanned incremental steps and instructions"

It doesn't matter what Dawkins or the Pope says for that matter...They are just words.
You do know how science works right?

Nah, I don't think you've grasped it completely.
I mean, evolution is just a theory, right?

PS, If science renamed it to "The facts of evolution", would you believe then?
You won't because it wasn't lack of knowledge which got you hooked on God. It was filling your heads with nonsense at a young age.

(June 18, 2017 at 7:14 pm)Mariosep Wrote: Dear Khemikal, let us we two talk about what is sensory apparatus by which you come to know what is existence.

You have brought up that term, sensory apparatus, so in re knowledge of existence, what do you mean by that term?

You bring up the term, so you have the right the privilege and the burden to explain what is your meaning of the term sensory apparatus.

Again, how did you know to respond to me.  How did you know what I wrote?

You have eyes.

Well, surprise surprise, so do I. When you ask how I come to know of existence; the same way you do. The same way that we all do.

---

(June 19, 2017 at 12:55 am)snowtracks Wrote: Darwin believe in the existence of God; he would say 'dummies' to those who did this little act of effortful suppression. Everyone believes, get use to it because there's nothing one can do change that. 
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/...t_god.html

Still lying about silly shit, are we?  Clown.

(June 19, 2017 at 1:13 am)Lutrinae Wrote:

(June 19, 2017 at 12:55 am)snowtracks Wrote: Darwin believe in the existence of God; he would say 'dummies' to those who did this little act of effortful suppression. Everyone believes, get use to it because there's nothing one can do change that. 
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/...t_god.html

I am not going to discount a scientists work in the area of science due to his religious beliefs.

So long as any scientist can keep both faith and science separate, there is no cause for concern.

The same cannot be stated for creationism or intelligent design.

American "thinker" is a paleo-conservative blog which makes John Birchers look like typical attendees at the Communist Internationale. The value of their intellects is zero, and their fact checking less.

Even if Darwin believed that, so what? Newton was also a practising alchemist. It's the evidence that counts, not the personal beliefs of the messenger. Theists of all stripes have never managed to grasp that.

Dear Khemikal, thanks for reacting, so I hope we two can continue to talk, because I cannot be replying to everyone here, in particular folks who do not follow the thread from the start, or choose to play amnesiac.

I notice you have not explained what you mean by sensory apparatus.

For everyone’s guidance, I am pursuing the path of getting everyone to work together to concur on what is existence, then to search what scientists tell us about existence, then we will work to concur on the concept of God; and finally, it will be clear to intelligent minds that there exists God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Dear everyone who is keen on the existence or not of God, please proffer to me what methodology you propose that you and I adopt in this thread, okay?

See Annex below for my definition of what is existence and my four examples of existence.

Dear Khemikal, I await your full definition of what is existence, a part of such definition from you might include the phrase sensory apparatus.

See you guys all again tomorrow.
_________________________

Annex [This Annex will be my signature text at the end of every post from me in this thread also of my authorship.]

Quote:Post #63 RE: What do scientists say about existence?
15th June 2017, 02:32

[…]

Quote:Here is again my concept of what is existence plus four examples:

  Mario Wrote:
  Post #12 RE: What do scientists say about existence?
    ___________________

  [...]

    This is an invitation for us all who are keen to know what is existence, what is a scientist, and does God exist, God from my part, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning, for us all to collaborate to resolve the meanings of existence, scientist, and God.

    From my part, existence is the reality which reality is the object of a living man having awareness, i.e. being conscious of his experiencing the presence of the said object.

    An example of existence is our nose.

    Another example of existence is the computer monitor screen we are looking at to read this post.

    A third example of existence is the rose in our flower garden.

    A fourth example of existence is the sun in the day sky and the moon in the night sky.

    What do you say, guys here: Do you have your idea of what is existence?

  [...]

[End of Annex]

Charles Darwin died as an agnostic atheist (note that the term was not yet in use before Darwin died):

Quote:Darwin continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the local church,[13] but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church.[14] Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."[7] He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_...les_Darwin

(June 18, 2017 at 11:14 pm)snowtracks Wrote: God reveals thought Special revelation, Scripture, which theologians interpret, General revelation, Nature, which scientists interpret. Since they both originate from God, Scripture and Nature will always agree, yes always.

So, god reveals himself and what he wants for us through special revelation (appearing on toast, talking to the greedy, etc.) and through a contradictory, discredited book?

There are hundreds, if not thousands of people around the world who claim to talk to this deity every day, some even claim to be it, and every day these charlatans take their followers for millions of dollars.

Who are we to believe when there are so many making the claims and so many interpretations of the "holy" book?

Surely, if a god wanted the people to truly know what it wanted, it would make itself known clearly, and clear up any confusion?

Oh, and Darwin was likely an agnostic atheist, or a deist at best.

And evolution is still occurring.

(June 19, 2017 at 2:23 pm)Mariosep Wrote: Dear Khemikal, thanks for reacting, so I hope we two can continue to talk, because I cannot be replying to everyone here, in particular folks who do not follow the thread from the start, or choose to play amnesiac.

I notice you have not explained what you mean by sensory apparatus.

I've explained it twice..and you've used your own sensory apparatus to respond to me more than twice.  You don't seem to need anything explained to you, are you out of gas?

If you really missed it, it's probably time to see an optometrist, who will explain more to you about your sensory apparatus.....but we both know you have the internet..so howsabout you google it, and get on with not getting on with it?

(June 18, 2017 at 11:50 pm)snowtracks Wrote: In the book - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Watchmaker = “The Blind Watchmaker” Richard Dawkins demonstrated that natural selection requires intelligence; thereby completely invalidating the theory that the universe is not directed.
He uses a computer program to generate the Shakespeare phase “Me thinks it is like a weasel” to simulate how random mutations and natural selection could generate new functional information...

Snowtracks, I think you missed the point of Dawkins' computer programming experiment. IIRC (it's been a while since I read the book), he demonstrated two different algorithms.  One was completely random, and the other operated under an additional constraint:  If the correct letter lands in a slot, it stops changing while incorrect letters continue to mutate until they, too fit.

Similarly, evolution does not cause everyone's genes to randomly change to something else with each reproductive cycle.  Perhaps in the early days of DNA there was a lot of trial and error, and a lot of "experimental" genomes that appeared for a single generation before dying out, but over many generations the genomes that achieved a good fit with their environments achieved stability and a decreasing number of mutations, evolving into distinct and relatively unchanging forms.

(Disclaimer:  I am not a geneticist but I occasionally hang out with one.    This is strictly my own interpretation of what Dawkins was trying to say in The Blind Watchmaker, and is subject to correction and elaboration by real geneticists.)