Well I can think of better ways than to be conversing with troll operating from a bot farm! Monty Crusty is regarded by many here as the resident clown who offers very little in the way of substance!
But I don’t need to do that.
I guess I was just bored.
Peace.
1 Like
Back to your original point on the existence of God! I liked what Berlinski said about its possibilities of it being true and the ones who outright refuse to believe never really delve into finding out, only that they are benign to entertain such thoughts due to their current dogma of facts masking their deficiencies of being capable to think it’s possible that a God exists! It’s a question that never goes away, even when Nietzsche tried to kill God by proclaiming “God is Dead” the post modernists like him failed in achieving those ends!
So yes Monty Crusty did prove your point!
As I have heard said, it all depends on which worldview glasses one views life through. There are quotes by renowned scientists stating, regardless of the facts, religious explanation for science can never answer the question no matter how convincing. scheesch!?
Science has not confirmed your religious views no matter how much you’d love for that to be so.
Thanks once again for proving what an ignorant fool you are! How about actually watching the video in OP instead posting your crap in all threads here? Leave the conversation to the adults here and go back to your stupid bot farm! Your stupid comments lowers the discourse of this thread!
That is correct, and it’s as old as man himself that is always presented as a paradox.
Pick a topic to debate this point. Maybe start a new thread so as not to derail this one. But, state at the beginning what evidence would be convincing enough to change your mind.
Go!
Now that’s funny coming from a guy that’s been off topic for the past dozen posts…
What is even funnier is you purposely try to derail threads on a consistent basis and then you trying to call someone out on it! Your hypocrisy has no shame troll bot!
You’ve been debating it in more than one thread, seems important to you. Perhaps you could author a thread.
Agreed. Comparing Benedict to Francis is like comparing Wittgenstein to Katy Perry.
1 Like
It’s a tricky one, isn’t? Darwin, if we look honestly and open-mindedly at the evidence around us, seems correct about micro-evolution: the idea that there is evolution WITHIN species. But the evidence for macro-evolution - one species evolving into another one - is not there. As the article said, the fossil record shows whole species suddenly appearing in their entirety around the Cambrian era. Also, with what we know about mollecular biology that Darwin didn’t, there is no way that natural selection or genetic mutations can explain the vast complexity of life. So maybe the christian version of creation and conception does match with the scientific evidence: a designer/creator/God/something did bring to life a whole range of species and plonked them on a planet he arranged to be liveable for them. As you say, it’s not worth fighting over, but sometimes I like the idea of dying just so I can find out the truth once and for all!!
We’ll knock yourself out on that one.
First, I would like to quote Bertrand Russel “I can not prove or disprove the existence of god” Fair enough. It is correct that Mr. Darwin´s theories had major flaws.We have the benefit of electron microscopes,particle physics, a catalogue of fossil records, Homo Neanderthal, Teutonic plates,Cosmic noise and advanced genetic studies all of which Mr. Darwin had no access to. Many other people wrote about evolution before Mr. Darwin but was either screamed out (like today´s leftist do) or where published in periodicals not accessible to the public. Robert Chambers wrote his famous book “Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation” only to be shunned and shouted down. The next and greatest unsung writer of evolution was Patrick Matthew whose ideas were remarkably like Darwin’s book but published in and obscured publication “Timber and Arboriculture” twenty years before Darwin. People were fed up with abracadabra or Hocus Pocus and were finally able to read a rational depiction of natural selection.
A question that always bothers me about natural selection. Who or what does the selecting?
I am no expert,but a famous early 20th century French scientist after studying Mendels pea plant genetic map, discovered that natural genetic mutations occurred during successive generations.That is one of the secrets of natural selection the development of new species, usually over millions of years.
1 Like
Except mutations have been found to not add any new information to the genetic code. Quite the contrary, mutations are due to a loss of information and will often revert back to the original species.
Repeat…I am not an expert! There are many other factors, environment, geology, abundance of food and temperature. Check Carl Sagens book…Shadows of Our Forgotten Ancestors,