Posts: 228
Threads: 17
Joined: January 9, 2014
Reputation:
2
RE: Question for the theist
March 30, 2014 at 2:39 pm
(March 30, 2014 at 10:18 am)alpha male Wrote: (March 29, 2014 at 6:08 pm)xr34p3rx Wrote: OK well if you have read the entire article, perhaps you understand or just know but don't agree? I've read the entire article more than once. I agree with parts of it and disagree with parts.
Quote:and your second quote I was referring to creationists, that you agree and give them credit
No, I agree with some things creationists say and disagree with some.
I don't think origins is a study that lends itself well to scientific study, i.e. I don't buy either side. They take the same observable facts and try to hammer them into their existing framework. Sometimes it's a good fit, sometimes not so much.
Further, I can't really say I agree OR disagree with science, as I don't subscribe to peer-reviewed journals.
so do you agree or disagree that we have a common ancestor with apes?
xR34P3Rx
it isn't in our nature to think of a God, it is in our nature to seek answers and the concept of God is most influenced in this world.
Posts: 6851
Threads: 76
Joined: October 17, 2012
Reputation:
31
RE: Question for the theist
March 31, 2014 at 7:24 am
(March 30, 2014 at 2:39 pm)xr34p3rx Wrote: so do you agree or disagree that we have a common ancestor with apes? Disagree.
Posts: 1309
Threads: 44
Joined: March 13, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Question for the theist
March 31, 2014 at 7:27 am
(March 31, 2014 at 7:24 am)alpha male Wrote: (March 30, 2014 at 2:39 pm)xr34p3rx Wrote: so do you agree or disagree that we have a common ancestor with apes? Disagree.
Too bad that you disagree with science.
Posts: 6851
Threads: 76
Joined: October 17, 2012
Reputation:
31
RE: Question for the theist
March 31, 2014 at 8:04 am
(March 31, 2014 at 7:27 am)tor Wrote: Too bad that you disagree with science. Not necessarily. I can't find consensus definitions of science or scientific evidence. They mean different things to different people, including among those who call themselves scientists. I choose a definition which is more restrictive than some.
Posts: 1309
Threads: 44
Joined: March 13, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Question for the theist
March 31, 2014 at 8:24 am
(March 31, 2014 at 8:04 am)alpha male Wrote: (March 31, 2014 at 7:27 am)tor Wrote: Too bad that you disagree with science. Not necessarily. I can't find consensus definitions of science or scientific evidence. They mean different things to different people, including among those who call themselves scientists. I choose a definition which is more restrictive than some.
Lets hear your definition.
Posts: 6851
Threads: 76
Joined: October 17, 2012
Reputation:
31
RE: Question for the theist
March 31, 2014 at 8:35 am
(March 31, 2014 at 8:24 am)tor Wrote: Lets hear your definition. Let's hear yours.
Posts: 517
Threads: 0
Joined: March 2, 2013
Reputation:
2
RE: Question for the theist
March 31, 2014 at 8:42 am
(March 31, 2014 at 8:24 am)tor Wrote: (March 31, 2014 at 8:04 am)alpha male Wrote: Not necessarily. I can't find consensus definitions of science or scientific evidence. They mean different things to different people, including among those who call themselves scientists. I choose a definition which is more restrictive than some.
Lets hear your definition.
that's right. be careful. Some people have agenda's. You can tell the difference.
There is no "one and only one" definition. It is silly to ask for that. Define the words "football game". That's what it is like defining science.
also, be true to thy own self. Do you as a "believer" really want to discuss evidence and conclusions with a totally open mind? Whateverist seems to be like that. There are many people that do this. The problem is there are more people that want to force their ideas on you. atheist or theist.
Posts: 1121
Threads: 53
Joined: February 5, 2013
Reputation:
15
RE: Question for the theist
March 31, 2014 at 9:22 am
(This post was last modified: March 31, 2014 at 9:22 am by ManMachine.)
(March 23, 2014 at 7:41 pm)xr34p3rx Wrote: How do you account for the different races in humanity if your god created only 1 pair of humans in the beginning? wouldnt that require some evolution even if you dont agree with the theory completely?
saying god made it that way doesnt count, that is an assertion and you have to back it up anyway.
Ideas like 'race' and 'species' are a mirage. Any decent Darwinist knows that all species are afloat on a genetic tide. Subtle and imperceptible, the impermanence of the genetic drift is the machinery of evolution.
The notion of species is a convenience, an anchor that approximates the real world into our rigid conceptual constructs.
When you can determine the exact nature of 'species' you can have your cake and eat it.
Same argument for the god-botherers too.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
Posts: 228
Threads: 17
Joined: January 9, 2014
Reputation:
2
RE: Question for the theist
March 31, 2014 at 1:14 pm
(This post was last modified: March 31, 2014 at 1:22 pm by xr34p3rx.)
(March 31, 2014 at 8:04 am)alpha male Wrote: (March 31, 2014 at 7:27 am)tor Wrote: Too bad that you disagree with science. Not necessarily. I can't find consensus definitions of science or scientific evidence. They mean different things to different people, including among those who call themselves scientists. I choose a definition which is more restrictive than some.
so you disagree even with the evidence in your face. that's sad man. evidence is not a matter of semantics like what the vast majority of religious people do, they twist the meaning of the word so it fits with their claims and views and don't consider what it really means according to the subject . in this case science. evidence is evidence, something to fall back on to prove something. but there are strong (undeniable) evidence and anecdotes which is Christian evidence.
(March 31, 2014 at 8:35 am)alpha male Wrote: (March 31, 2014 at 8:24 am)tor Wrote: Lets hear your definition. Let's hear yours.
and please PLEASE stop redirecting questions to the asker, just answer the frekn question
(March 31, 2014 at 8:35 am)alpha male Wrote: (March 31, 2014 at 8:24 am)tor Wrote: Lets hear your definition. Let's hear yours.
and also, science isn't subjective it's objective
xR34P3Rx
it isn't in our nature to think of a God, it is in our nature to seek answers and the concept of God is most influenced in this world.
Posts: 6851
Threads: 76
Joined: October 17, 2012
Reputation:
31
RE: Question for the theist
March 31, 2014 at 1:29 pm
(March 31, 2014 at 1:14 pm)xr34p3rx Wrote: so you disagree even with the evidence in your face. No, I agree with the evidence. I disagree with interpretations of the evidence.
|
