For the love of God would you please learn the meaning of "lying"! Your accusations of "lying" are ridiculous! A mistake is not a lie. Something contrary to what you believe is not a lie. Something that you disagree with or that disagrees with you is not a lie. An erroneous belief is not a lie.Stop lying.
Obviously I was made. I was made by biological process inside my mother.
If what you were trying to say was what process caused the human species to happen then we can discuss evolution. You do not currently understand what that is. You will have to learn.
Stop lying.
The basis of reasonable thinking is starting from understanding that you don't know and then you get answers that talk about degrees of confidence.
Certianty is for the fools. Intelligence leads to constsnt doubt.
Stop lying.
You do not know what most Americans are and they definately would not decribe themselves as pantheists. You also don't know what an atheist is.
Evolution over billions of years and millions of generations of mamals alone is a very good method of getting to highly efficent forms.
If you say so. Have you any evidence for this? Or just making **** up?
No it does not. Were you home schooled?
So that's utterly not anything to do with science then.
Stop lying.
Stop lying.
Obviously I was made. I was made by biological process inside my mother.
If what you were trying to say was what process caused the human species to happen then we can discuss evolution. You do not currently understand what that is. You will have to learn.
Stop lying.
The basis of reasonable thinking is starting from understanding that you don't know and then you get answers that talk about degrees of confidence.
Certianty is for the fools. Intelligence leads to constsnt doubt.
Stop lying.
You do not know what most Americans are and they definately would not decribe themselves as pantheists. You also don't know what an atheist is.
Evolution over billions of years and millions of generations of mamals alone is a very good method of getting to highly efficent forms.
If you say so. Have you any evidence for this? Or just making **** up?
No it does not. Were you home schooled?
So that's utterly not anything to do with science then.
Stop lying.
How are the things you're saying any different than Taoism?
For the love of God would you please learn the meaning of "lying"! Your accusations of "lying" are ridiculous! A mistake is not a lie. Something contrary to what you believe is not a lie. Something that you disagree with or that disagrees with you is not a lie. An erroneous belief is not a lie.
A lie is a deliberate and conscious telling of a falsehood. It is stating something is true when one knows it to be false.
Your inability to grasp the meaning of this word, which you've been corrected on for over a year on my watch alone, undermines the credibility of anything you have to say.
Which is another religion commonly masqueraded as "science" (atheists sure enjoy doing this)... Evolution is an unfalsifiable theory. New Atheists either do not realize this or are perfectly aware of it, but just flat out deny it to support their "religion is stupid" mantra... For all the "religion bashing" that they do, they sure do practice a heck of a lot of religion...Whenever the subject of who made us is brought up, the New Atheists start talking about evolution.
Correct. Faith is circular reasoning (they are synonymous terms), and religion begins and ends with an initial circular argument. The Theory of Evolution is one of many religions.They have complete faith in one particular theory of evolution, a new version of Darwin's theory.
Correct. It doesn't. To be fair, that's not what Evolution is attempting to explain, though.For one thing, that says nothing about how life started in the first place.
Well, you're right in that it doesn't explain it with certainty (no unfalsifiable theory can do so), but it does offer up a possible explanation for how/why life evolved which may or may not be true.But it also does not explain how or why life evolved.
I agree with your general assertion, but the wording is a bit off again... What you mean instead of hypothesis is theory. A theory is an explanatory argument. That is what Evolution is attempting to do... it is attempting to explain how/why life evolved. A hypothesis is rather what one comes up with to answer the question 'How can I falsify this theory?' ... There are conceivable ways to falsify Evolution, however, one would need a working time machine in order to do so, so since those conceivable ways are currently inaccessible, Evolution is non-falsifiable, thus it remains a religion. -- In short, the word 'theory' is a better word to use because theory means "explanatory argument", which is what Evolution is.It is just a hypothesis.
This would actually be the Theory of Abiogenesis, which is one of numerous alternatives to the Theory of Creation which argues that the universe was designed by an 'Intelligent Designer'. Those two theories happen to contradict each other, therefore, if A is true, then B is false, and if B is true, then A is false.The idea is that a non-living universe can create life through a long series of unlikely accidents.
This would be getting more into the Theory of Evolution again... I will point out that natural selection has actually been falsified. All it takes is one example to falsify a theory, and if organisms better adapted to suit their environment survive over ones which aren't, then there wouldn't be any albino varieties in existence today. Yet, there are... There also wouldn't be the vast variety of organisms that there are today (there would be little to no variety since the "less adapted" varieties would get weeded out)...Then, once life has started, accidental variations and natural selection take over and cause new species to be created.
Theory, not hypothesis, but yes, the general idea is correct.That is only ONE hypothesis about how life may have evolved.
Generally correct.It has never been observed and there are no experiments that demonstrate it. It is accepted merely because it does not require a living intelligent universe.
Good point, and absolutely correct.A lot of people now days think that believing in an intelligent universe is somehow at odds with science. No, it does not contradict science at all. It only contradicts atheism and materialism.
I wouldn't go quite that far, but I do generally find evolution to be convincing.All of us who are scientific and educated believe in evolution. It has been demonstrated beyond doubt.
Correct.But we don't necessarily accept neo-Darwinism as the explanation.
Whenever the subject of who made us is brought up, the New Atheists start talking about evolution. They have complete faith in one particular theory of evolution, a new version of Darwin's theory.
For one thing, that says nothing about how life started in the first place. But it also does not explain how or why life evolved. It is just a hypothesis. The idea is that a non-living universe can create life through a long series of unlikely accidents. Then, once life has started, accidental variations and natural selection take over and cause new species to be created.
That is only ONE hypothesis about how life may have evolved. It has never been observed and there are no experiments that demonstrate it. It is accepted merely because it does not require a living intelligent universe.
A lot of people now days think that believing in an intelligent universe is somehow at odds with science. No, it does not contradict science at all. It only contradicts atheism and materialism.
All of us who are scientific and educated believe in evolution. It has been demonstrated beyond doubt. But we don't necessarily accept neo-Darwinism as the explanation.
Fundamentalist Christians don't have faith in their own intelligence and reasoning powers, but they DO have faith in the intelligence of the people who wrote their bible.
Experiment that demonstrates hwo life is automatic from cabon chemistry.
https://www.ted.com/talks/martin_hanczyc_the_line_between_life_and_not_life?language=en
If you say that you don't know of any experiment that shows how life can come from not life then fine. But claiming that you know there is no such thing is a lie.
Oh that proves it. Now we know with absolute certainty that life began as a random accident in a dead universe. I was lying when I said the universe is alive and naturally creates life.
Oh that proves it. Now we know with absolute certainty that life began as a random accident in a dead universe. I was lying when I said the universe is alive and naturally creates life.
For one thing, that says nothing about how life started in the first place. But it also does not explain how or why life evolved. It is just a hypothesis. The idea is that a non-living universe can create life through a long series of unlikely accidents. Then, once life has started, accidental variations and natural selection take over and cause new species to be created.
For a pantheist like me, the answer is the infinitely intelligent and creative Universe. I just call it God.
I naturally assume that whoever made me is a whole lot smarter than I am. Therefore I do not worship my own intelligence and ego. I know they are limited and very likely to be wrong most of the time.
Atheists, however, do not believe that we were made. Instead, they think that atoms and molecules banged into each other randomly and by accident somehow created life. They have no explanations for how this could have happened, but they feel very certain that it did.
Therefore, atheists have no reason to doubt human intelligence. They do not suspect that their reasoning process could be wrong.
So I see this as one big difference between believers and atheists. BUT -- fundamentalist Christians have something in common with atheists.
Fundamentalist Christians don't have faith in their own intelligence and reasoning powers, but they DO have faith in the intelligence of the people who wrote their bible.
Atheists and fundamentalist Christians are the outspoken extremes in the US. But most Americans are probably pantheists like me, even if they don't know the word and never thought much about it.
We were created by something infinitely smarter than ourselves. We are all connected in ways we can't understand. Life is meaningful in ways we can't imagine.
This kind of faith is inclusive, not divisive. It makes sense scientifically. No, it can't be proven. But we can each experience its miracles in our personal lives.
I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
For a pantheist like me, the answer is the infinitely intelligent and creative Universe. I just call it God.
I naturally assume that whoever made me is a whole lot smarter than I am. Therefore I do not worship my own intelligence and ego. I know they are limited and very likely to be wrong most of the time.
Atheists, however, do not believe that we were made. Instead, they think that atoms and molecules banged into each other randomly and by accident somehow created life. They have no explanations for how this could have happened, but they feel very certain that it did.
Therefore, atheists have no reason to doubt human intelligence. They do not suspect that their reasoning process could be wrong.
So I see this as one big difference between believers and atheists. BUT -- fundamentalist Christians have something in common with atheists.
Fundamentalist Christians don't have faith in their own intelligence and reasoning powers, but they DO have faith in the intelligence of the people who wrote their bible.
Atheists and fundamentalist Christians are the outspoken extremes in the US. But most Americans are probably pantheists like me, even if they don't know the word and never thought much about it.
We were created by something infinitely smarter than ourselves. We are all connected in ways we can't understand. Life is meaningful in ways we can't imagine.
This kind of faith is inclusive, not divisive. It makes sense scientifically. No, it can't be proven. But we can each experience its miracles in our personal lives.
The sound of atheists rejoicing is heard the world over. :lol:
They're not going to be rejoicing in the afterlife (Revelation 21:8).
Sure they will.
Because if there is an "after-life", most of them will still be in a much better place than you.
They're not going to be rejoicing in the afterlife (Revelation 21:8).
Ah yes, the Book of Revelation. A cryptic and veiled-reference to Rome under Domitian, penned by an unknown author well-versed in ancient Babylonian mysticism, using it as a literary device, and writing of an idealized redemption for oppressed followers of the fledgling Christian movement.
OM
Ah yes, the Book of Revelation. A cryptic and veiled-reference to Rome under Domitian, penned by an unknown author well-versed in ancient Babylonian mysticism, using it as a literary device, and writing of an idealized redemption for oppressed followers of the fledgling Christian movement.
OM
Ah yes, the Book of Revelation. A cryptic and veiled-reference to Rome under Domitian, penned by an unknown author well-versed in ancient Babylonian mysticism, using it as a literary device, and writing of an idealized redemption for oppressed followers of the fledgling Christian movement.
OM
Logicman believes in a spiteful, hateful, vengeful god.
He's going to be so totally disappointed.
You need a lot of help with your theology and studies in Revelation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?