You are still not going to convince some

http://www.aol.com/article/201...-of-evolut/21419324/

I've always said that belief in Evolution doesn't mean you are a godless person and also being Religious or belief in God doesn't mean you don't believe in Evolution.  I've always rejected Evolution but being a Christian, and religious, if I did believe in Evolution I would have just believed that Evolution was the way God chose to establish life.

As it is though I don't believe in Evolution and never did.  Thankfully there are some others that aren't falling in lock step behind Darwin.  I've wondered  how Evolution could have gained such a foothold in school teaching at the exclusion of all other theories.  I can remember when people wanted to eliminate the exclusive teaching that creation was behind life and they were for just allowing a competing theory (evolution) to be taught, they just wanted to be able to expose minds to competing theories.  Flash ahead and how things have changed.  Now evolution is the accepted and creation is excluded.  No longer should we allow competing theories to be taught we have to be exclusive.

Typical of many things and has many applications.

Be as the Bereans ( Acts 17:11 )
Original Post
gbrk posted:

http://www.aol.com/article/201...-of-evolut/21419324/

I've always said that belief in Evolution doesn't mean you are a godless person and also being Religious or belief in God doesn't mean you don't believe in Evolution.  I've always rejected Evolution but being a Christian, and religious, if I did believe in Evolution I would have just believed that Evolution was the way God chose to establish life.

As it is though I don't believe in Evolution and never did.  Thankfully there are some others that aren't falling in lock step behind Darwin.  I've wondered  how Evolution could have gained such a foothold in school teaching at the exclusion of all other theories.  I can remember when people wanted to eliminate the exclusive teaching that creation was behind life and they were for just allowing a competing theory (evolution) to be taught, they just wanted to be able to expose minds to competing theories.  Flash ahead and how things have changed.  Now evolution is the accepted and creation is excluded.  No longer should we allow competing theories to be taught we have to be exclusive.

Typical of many things and has many applications.

Thats nice.  I don't believe any gods exist.  Therefore, creation is wrong.

OldSalt posted:
gbrk posted:

http://www.aol.com/article/201...-of-evolut/21419324/

I've always said that belief in Evolution doesn't mean you are a godless person and also being Religious or belief in God doesn't mean you don't believe in Evolution.  I've always rejected Evolution but being a Christian, and religious, if I did believe in Evolution I would have just believed that Evolution was the way God chose to establish life.

As it is though I don't believe in Evolution and never did.  Thankfully there are some others that aren't falling in lock step behind Darwin.  I've wondered  how Evolution could have gained such a foothold in school teaching at the exclusion of all other theories.  I can remember when people wanted to eliminate the exclusive teaching that creation was behind life and they were for just allowing a competing theory (evolution) to be taught, they just wanted to be able to expose minds to competing theories.  Flash ahead and how things have changed.  Now evolution is the accepted and creation is excluded.  No longer should we allow competing theories to be taught we have to be exclusive.

Typical of many things and has many applications.

Thats nice.  I don't believe any gods exist.  Therefore, creation is wrong.

Your "therefore" implies that you are all-knowing and your opinion trumps all others. Remarkable!

Thumper posted:

Atheists and agnostics worship even more fervently than Christians. But you worship at the alter of your perception of your own intelligence. We choose God. Everyone has a choice.

Yes, yes.  We go to the Church of Our Immaculate Intelligence and prostrate ourselves before the alter of infallible knowledge and chant "Darwin, Darwin, Darwin..."

Most atheists value knowledge over belief - the real over the imagined - the natural over the supernatural.  We don't worship anything despite your uninformed opinion of two disparate groups - atheists and agnostics.

 

OldSalt posted:
Thumper posted:

Atheists and agnostics worship even more fervently than Christians. But you worship at the alter of your perception of your own intelligence. We choose God. Everyone has a choice.

Yes, yes.  We go to the Church of Our Immaculate Intelligence and prostrate ourselves before the alter of infallible knowledge and chant "Darwin, Darwin, Darwin..."

Most atheists value knowledge over belief - the real over the imagined - the natural over the supernatural.  We don't worship anything despite your uninformed opinion of two disparate groups - atheists and agnostics.

 

At least the first paragraph is accurate.

giftedamateur posted:
Thumper posted:

Atheists and agnostics worship even more fervently than Christians. But you worship at the alter of your perception of your own intelligence. We choose God. Everyone has a choice.

"Thumper", it's altar. Someone would be very upset about that.

Typing on a phone has its limitations... thanks!

budsfarm posted:

 

if I did believe in Evolution I would have just believed that Evolution was the way God chose to establish life.  ~ GBRK

Isn't evolution Gods way of tweaking things? ~ JTDAVIS

I agree with y'all.  I have no problem combining science & religion.

I have no problem with that. Science is the study of God's creation.

Thumper posted:
OldSalt posted:
Thumper posted:

Atheists and agnostics worship even more fervently than Christians. But you worship at the alter of your perception of your own intelligence. We choose God. Everyone has a choice.

Yes, yes.  We go to the Church of Our Immaculate Intelligence and prostrate ourselves before the alter of infallible knowledge and chant "Darwin, Darwin, Darwin..."

Most atheists value knowledge over belief - the real over the imagined - the natural over the supernatural.  We don't worship anything despite your uninformed opinion of two disparate groups - atheists and agnostics.

 

At least the first paragraph is accurate.

So, please educate me as to how the second paragraph is not accurate.

 

Most atheists value knowledge over belief - the real over the imagined - the natural over the supernatural. ~ OLDSALT

Knowledge over theory as well, I presume. 

Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for? ~ Robert Browning

budsfarm posted:

 

if I did believe in Evolution I would have just believed that Evolution was the way God chose to establish life.  ~ GBRK

Isn't evolution Gods way of tweaking things? ~ JTDAVIS

I agree with y'all.  I have no problem combining science & religion.

Yes, the Scottish Enlightenment reconciled the two, without heads rolling. 

budsfarm posted:

 

Most atheists value knowledge over belief - the real over the imagined - the natural over the supernatural. ~ OLDSALT

Knowledge over theory as well, I presume. 

Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for? ~ Robert Browning

I shall reply in this manner:

We know stuff about gravity. That knowledge is gained from observing reality.  We can't see gravity, but we can measure the force it exerts.  We can feel gravity.  We have mathematical equations that accurately model and predict gravity and the behavior of objects in gravity.  We call this the Theory of Gravity.  You see, a scientific theory is not a guess as apparently some believe.  Scientific theories are knowledge.

OldSalt posted:
budsfarm posted:

 

Most atheists value knowledge over belief - the real over the imagined - the natural over the supernatural. ~ OLDSALT

Knowledge over theory as well, I presume. 

Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for? ~ Robert Browning

I shall reply in this manner:

We know stuff about gravity. That knowledge is gained from observing reality.  We can't see gravity, but we can measure the force it exerts.  We can feel gravity.  We have mathematical equations that accurately model and predict gravity and the behavior of objects in gravity.  We call this the Theory of Gravity.  You see, a scientific theory is not a guess as apparently some believe.  Scientific theories are knowledge.

I remember it as being the "Law of Gravity."  Parachutist know this as "terminal velocity."  Nothing theoretical about that.  **

https://www.google.com/webhp?h...amp;q=law+of+gravity

Flat earth was a theory as is the "Big Bang."

That's what they call it a theory for some reason or another.

**  You'll pay to know what you really think.  ~ J. R. "Bob" Dobbs

budsfarm posted:

I remember it as being the "Law of Gravity."  Parachutist know this as "terminal velocity."  Nothing theoretical about that.

https://www.google.com/webhp?h...amp;q=law+of+gravity

Flat earth was a theory as is the "Big Bang."

That's what they call it a theory for some reason or another.

 

Yes, a law of gravity states that two objects with mass will accelerate (fall) towards each other.  Why do they?  That's explained by the Theory of Gravity. 

Theories explain the why and how of a scientific law, like the above law of gravity.  Indeed, theories can be disproved, just as all flat earth theories (hypothesis actually) have been disproved.  Just let me know when someone wins the Nobel Prize in Physics for disproving the Big Bang Theory, or in Biology for disproving the Theory of Evolution.   That will be big news!

http://www.livescience.com/214...-scientific-law.html

"In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of the phenomenon is called a scientific theory. It is a misconception that theories turn into laws with enough research.

http://www.livescience.com/214...ition-of-theory.html

The University of California, Berkley defines a theory as "a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses." 

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. 

An important part of scientific theory includes statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton’s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently."

 

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×