11 Oct '10 14:47>
Originally posted by Proper Knobyou mean you have feelings? feelings of an almost human nature, b b b but your an atheist! 😉
And that's exactly how i feel about the anti-evolutionists (yourself included)!!!
Originally posted by Proper Knobon the up side there are many of us left wing American Christians that do not share these views. I believe God created everything in existance, even quite likely evolution, the evidence supports it. I do not , however, believe that life sprang out of nothingness.
Unfortunately Rob, every right wing American Christian shares the same views.
Originally posted by amannionSince both theories have to have people accepting things they may not agree with
It strikes me that the people that argue vociferously against evolution strike many of the similar notes as the people who argue against human-induced climate change.
I wonder what the perspective of religious people is on climate change?
On evolution, I come back to a question I asked some years ago, which never seemed to be answered terribly well - ...[text shortened]... describe atoms or radiation or gravity or many others. What's the problem with this one other?
Originally posted by KellyJayI never said it surprised me ...
Since both theories have to have people accepting things they may not agree with
or believe in why should it suprise you? Climate change has more than a few
people disagreeing with how the data is being viewed, there has also been more
than a few times people have been caught not being completely truthful about the
data and there is a lot of money to be ...[text shortened]... about
motives too. I'm amazed at the sheep like following both have of true believers.
Kelly
Originally posted by amannionThe evolution therory started as a therory, and is still a therory, but now has been debunked.
It strikes me that the people that argue vociferously against evolution strike many of the similar notes as the people who argue against human-induced climate change.
I wonder what the perspective of religious people is on climate change?
On evolution, I come back to a question I asked some years ago, which never seemed to be answered terribly well - ...[text shortened]... describe atoms or radiation or gravity or many others. What's the problem with this one other?
Originally posted by vishvahetuYou're right, it started as a theory and remains a theory.
The evolution therory started as a therory, and is still a therory, but now has been debunked.
But the dishonest scientists still support it, because it supports their atheistic values.
It was debunked before the book "Forbidden Archeology" but this book is the final nail in the coffin, and "Forbidden Archeology The Impact" deals with all the dishon ...[text shortened]... lander has been debunked also.
Now anyone supporting this therory, is outright dishonest.
Originally posted by amannionIve mentined before that the Vedanata is the alternative that you seek, but you are not seeking, because it would not support your atheistic values.
You're right, it started as a theory and remains a theory.
Because science rests on contingency - that is, if it works use it, if it doesn't, try something else - then all models to explain how something works are known as 'theories'.
It has been ridiculed and parodied and condemned, but it hasn't been debunked.
When someone comes up with an alternative ...[text shortened]... e is pathetic and idiotic and you might be better served sticking with your fairy tales.
Originally posted by vishvahetuClaiming that some mystical crap - call it Vedanta, or Allah, or Jahweh - is the answer to everything someone is looking for may be very nice for you, but for a scientist it's not useful.
Ive mentined before that the Vedanata is the alternative that you seek, but you are not seeking, because it would not support your atheistic values.
So you deny the very thing that would explain everthing, so you are your own worst enemy (at the moment)
Supporting a false therory is not scientific or honhest, why dont the scientists just say they have no clue.
Originally posted by amannionI appreciate computers and cars, I have never said i didnt, but we are talking about origons and the cause of everthing. (different subject)
Claiming that some mystical crap - call it Vedanta, or Allah, or Jahweh - is the answer to everything someone is looking for may be very nice for you, but for a scientist it's not useful.
Scientists aren't looking for revealed truth - it's suspect by it's very nature. You're as certain about Vedanta as the Christian is about the divinity of Jesus and a Mor ...[text shortened]... nothing.
Well, I do deny gods and fairies, but, well, I'm an atheist now aren't I ...
Originally posted by vishvahetuOkay let's tick off two errors:
I appreciate computers and cars, I have never said i didnt, but we are talking about origons and the cause of everthing. (different subject)
I could give you a list if unseen things that the scientists accept as real, but as soon as someone mentions the soul, the scientists reject.
This is their biased approach, and is unscietific and dishonest.
...[text shortened]...
Actually by denying the Supreme Spititual Creative Power, makes science look stupid and lost.
Originally posted by amannionWell i understood it to be a therory of the origons of the species, and their cause (the unseen hand of natural selection)
Okay let's tick off two errors:
1. Evolution is neither about origins, nor about the cause of everything. A high school education in science should give you that much ...
2. Scientists do accept unseen things as real, but only if they work within the context of a model that seeks to explain something. What model does the soul fit into?
And the rest ...[text shortened]... s for itself ... Vedanta is 'the perfect faultless source'?
And you call scientists biased?
Originally posted by vishvahetuNo, the theory is about speciation - that is, how do you get many different species from one. Darwin called his book 'On the origin of species' - the key being species and not life. It was not and is not a theory about the origins of life.
Well i understood it to be a therory of the origons of the species, and their cause (the unseen hand of natural selection)
But the therory starts with a planet floating in space (magically) and then magically there was a puddle, and magically there was a lightning bolt, and magically we have millions of speicies and man.
So this seems to be the fair ...[text shortened]... e so enveious of God, that they say any rediculious thing.....but i am one, who will not buy it.
Originally posted by amannionDon't know about billonaires, but money is being made...and the power grab
I never said it surprised me ...
And yeah, climate change science is lucrative isn't it. There's just so many of those damned climate change scientist billionaires, aren't there ...
Originally posted by KellyJayI can think of a few fossil fuel and mining companies that do alright out of our continuing heavy use of carbon rich compounds.
Don't know about billonaires, but money is being made...and the power grab
is occuring left and right, it is all about control.
Kelly
Originally posted by amannionAl Gore, and quite a few people who are getting grants are making money.
I can think of a few fossil fuel and mining companies that do alright out of our continuing heavy use of carbon rich compounds.
Can you name [b]one example of a climate change scientist or researcher getting rich off their work?[/b]