19 Aug '11 11:57>
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe are confused.
So how do you account for the scientists who believe in God who also accept the evidence for evolution?
How does that compute in your brain?!
Originally posted by twhiteheadContradicts previous statements?????? Inconsistent?????
Which contradicts some of your previous statements. You are inconsistent.
In reality, you accept science when it suits you and reject it when it doesn't. This has nothing to do with the scientists in question, but rather whether or not you personally like the results.
Originally posted by googlefudgeIf what you say is true. How can scientist get out of this predicament?
Scientists, or people following the basics of scientific method before it
had been codified and the name coined, have been exploring the universe
and trying to explain it long before most of them were atheists.
It was in fact due to what these (largely Christian) theistic scientists discovered
that most today are now non-religious.
Plus whethe ...[text shortened]... d.
Simply a discussion of the scientific legitimacy of evolution by natural selection.
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat predicament?
If what you say is true. How can scientist get out of this predicament?
Originally posted by googlefudgeI've explained to Ronald in baby steps how evolution works, he accepted everything i said yet still says life didn't evolve.
What predicament?
(not being funny, I wasn't aware I was putting scientists into a predicament)
[/i]
EDIT:
After re-reading my post I can't find any predicament for scientist's in it.
I was simply pointing out that any explanation that involves the supernatural is
not in fact an explanation at all.
You have simply moved the unknown from t ...[text shortened]... y examine the evidence and logic behind the theory
you have been dismissing for so long?
Originally posted by googlefudgeIn the past it has always turned out that the Holy Bible was right.
What predicament?
(not being funny, I wasn't aware I was putting scientists into a predicament)
[i]
EDIT:
After re-reading my post I can't find any predicament for scientist's in it.
I was simply pointing out that any explanation that involves the supernatural is
not in fact an explanation at all.
You have simply moved the unknown from the t ...[text shortened]... ually examine the evidence and logic behind the theory
you have been dismissing for so long?
Originally posted by RJHinds
In the past it has always turned out that the Holy Bible was right.
So I'm sticking with the tried and true.
P.S. The predicament i was referring to is in your statement below:
"When we want to explain something we have to do it in terms of other things
we already understand. Otherwise if you explain something in terms of something
we don't under ...[text shortened]... actual explanation of how or why this thing you are
trying to explain worked/happened."
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you are generalizing and demonizing the entire branch of science known as evolution theory. Ok.
You really should have taken your smart pill today. Obviously,
"they" are evolutionist -- see the Question.