1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasNo it has everything to do with science, it simply interprets scientific data differently. For example, one observes the physical world and draws certain inferences (not proofs) about the nature of God. If i just keep nodding and smiling, will that be enough for you?
"Creationism is a religious belief."
Yes, I agree. It has nothing to do with science.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo now, suddenly, you change your mind?
No it has everything to do with science, it simply interprets scientific data differently. For example, one observes the physical world and draws certain inferences (not proofs) about the nature of God. If i just keep nodding and smiling, will that be enough for you?
You bring in your god as the creator of the scientific creationism idea of yours? Then you have to scientifically prove that there certainly is such a god.
So go ahead - Prove that there is a creationism god! Or, propose an experiment that really can be used prove an existance of a creator god.
When you fail with this, then come back and tell us that you earlier was wrong.
Because, you see, god isn't part of the nature, he is a supernatural being. Therefore not science. If you try to prove creationism, then you are dealing with pseudo-science.
And by this I have proved that you don't know the difference between science and pseudo-science.
Can you discuss this without going even further off-topic? And if you do: Tell us that you are allowed to go off-topic, and not others?
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasHaha, was old Fabian harbouring some serious misconceptions??? Its no fun having someone point out that your preconceptions are in fact null and void, non realities based on mere opinion and assumptions, ask Zapansy, or Agers, or Noobster, they also made the same mistake, I for my part am simply content to nod and smile 😀
So now, suddenly, you change your mind?
You bring in your god as the creator of the scientific creationism idea of yours? Then you have to scientifically prove that there certainly is such a god.
So go ahead - Prove that there is a creationism god! Or, propose an experiment that really can be used prove an existance of a creator god.
When you fai urther off-topic? And if you do: Tell us that you are allowed to go off-topic, and not others?
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSorry, I don't know any Zapansy, and Noobster User 196163 is not very active on the forum, so I don't know who you're alking about...
Haha, was old Fabian harbouring some serious misconceptions??? Its no fun having someone point out that your preconceptions are in fact null and void, non realities based on mere opinion and assumptions, ask Zapansy, or Agers, or Noobster, they also made the same mistake, I for my part am simply content to nod and smile 😀
I usually call my friends here, including you, with their name. With christian respect. Not childishly disrespectful. I suggest you do so too.
If everyone else has one opinion, and you another - don't you think that you might be wrog, and the others right? Do you really think that you are the only true-teller in the forums? Ask our friend Vishvahetu, and you will get a straight answer.
Originally posted by FabianFnassmiles and Nods, better check what your adversary actually professes before attacking his belief system, could end up, your cyber rockets u turn and return to base 🙂
Sorry, I don't know any Zapansy, and Noobster User 196163 is not very active on the forum, so I don't know who you're alking about...
I usually call my friends here, including you, with their name. With christian respect. Not childishly disrespectful. I suggest you do so too.
If everyone else has one opinion, and you another - don't you think th ...[text shortened]... ly true-teller in the forums? Ask our friend Vishvahetu, and you will get a straight answer.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“...Rowthorn has developed a model that shows that the genetic components that predispose a person toward RELIGION are currently “hitchhiking” on the back of the religious cultural practice of high fertility rates. ….” (my emphasis)
Rowthorn has developed a model that shows that [b]the genetic components that predispose a person toward religion are currently “hitchhiking” on the back of the religious cultural practice of high fertility rates.
One even wonders if you read the article in question! Get over it Spanky, there is no religiosity gene, there is no gay gene, you people are guilty of politicising issues using non science![/b]
exactly! “ toward RELIGION “ ! NOT “ toward a particular religious point of view“ !
I challenge you to show where it says/implies “ toward a particular religious point of view“ !
Unless you erroneously equate “ toward RELIGION “ with “ toward a particular religious point of view“ ?
If so, where is the logical contradiction in something predispose a person toward RELIGION but no a particular religion or religious point of view -just any sort of religion ?
"...One even wonders if you read the article in question!..."
one wonders how you can misunderstand so much of what you read.
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltontowards religion or towards a religious point of view, or a religious perspective, or a religious outlook, or the adoption of religious tenets etc etc are essentially one and the same. Your objection is of course reflective of the petty pedantic reasoning we have come to expect from the pure materialist. One wonders if you shall ever get over your room full of mirrors so that you are able to stop projecting with your mind and assigning erroneous values to others.
“...Rowthorn has developed a model that shows that the genetic components that predispose a person toward RELIGION are currently “hitchhiking” on the back of the religious cultural practice of high fertility rates. ….” (my emphasis)
exactly! “ toward RELIGION “ ! NOT “ toward a particular religious point of view“ !
I challenge you to show where he article in question!..."
one wonders how you can misunderstand so much of what you read.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“...towards religion or towards a religious point of view, …....................etc are essentially one and the same. ...”
towards religion or towards a religious point of view, or a religious perspective, or a religious outlook, or the adoption of religious tenets etc etc are essentially one and the same. Your objection is of course reflective of the petty pedantic reasoning we have come to expect from the pure materialist. One wonders if you shall ever get over your r ...[text shortened]... so that you are able to stop projecting with your mind and assigning erroneous values to others.
You have just shifted your position in the above from what you said before and hoped I wouldn't notice:
you didn't previously say “ towards a religious point of view” (like above) but previously said “towards a PARTICULAR religious point of view “ (my emphasis) but now dropped the word “ PARTICULAR” to contrive the two to make them sound equivalent.
reminder of what you said in your first post in this thread:
“...sigh, the Human Genome Project has been mapped, there is no such thing as a 'religiosity gene', which predisposes a person towards a PARTICULAR religious point of view. ...” (my emphasis)
so becoming a theist equates to, say, specifically having the PARTICULAR religious point of view that only Christian religion is the “correct” religion AND specifically having the PARTICULAR religious point of view that only Muslim religion is the “correct” religion.
This isn't playing with semantics; one really doesn't equate with the other!
4 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonplease spare me the pettiness of it, towards a particular religious point of view is achieved by what mechanism? adopting religious tenets, therefore they are one and the same, your attempt to assert that they are somehow different is simply childish. I am simply uninterested in your pedantry. What the particular point of view was, was not stated and i cannot recall defining one either, making your assertion ludicrous. It really is bottom of the barrel stuff.
“...towards religion or towards a religious point of view, …....................etc are essentially one and the same. ...”
You have just shifted your position in the above from what you said before and hoped I wouldn't notice:
you didn't previously say “ towards a religious point of view” (like above) but previously said “towards a PARTICULAR rel t” religion.
This isn't playing with semantics; one really doesn't equate with the other!
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieGarbage!
towards religion or towards a religious point of view, or a religious perspective, or a religious outlook, or the adoption of religious tenets etc etc are essentially one and the same. Your objection is of course reflective of the petty pedantic reasoning we have come to expect from the pure materialist. One wonders if you shall ever get over your r ...[text shortened]... so that you are able to stop projecting with your mind and assigning erroneous values to others.
Difference between religion and *particular* religion is to pedantry what difference between the integers and -42937 is to pedantry. Religion is a very large box, and your particular religion is one thing amongst many inside that box. No one is being pedantic.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“...please spare me the pettiness of it, towards a particular religious point of view is achieved by what mechanism? adopting religious TENETS, therefore they are one and the same, ...” (my emphasis)
please spare me the pettiness of it, towards a particular religious point of view is achieved by what mechanism? adopting religious tenets, therefore they are one and the same, your attempt to assert that they are somehow different is simply childish. I am simply uninterested in your pedantry. What the particular point of view was, was not stated ...[text shortened]... defining one either, making your assertion ludicrous. It really is bottom of the barrel stuff.
I didn't say this.
I didn't say that “towards a particular religious point of view” is different from “ adopting religious TENETS” and you know it.
I didn't even mention the word “ TENETS”.
What I said is that “towards a PARTICULAR religious point of view” does not equate with “towards religion” (which is correct) and please stop putting words in my mouth.
“...your attempt to assert that they are somehow different is simply childish. ...”
where did I say “towards a particular religious point of view” is different from “ adopting religious TENETS” ?
I didn't.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonwhatever, i find it easier now just to nod and smile!
“...please spare me the pettiness of it, towards a particular religious point of view is achieved by what mechanism? adopting religious TENETS, therefore they are one and the same, ...” (my emphasis)
I didn't say this.
I didn't say that “towards a particular religious point of view” is different from “ adopting religious TENETS” and you know it. ...[text shortened]... ticular religious point of view” is different from “ adopting religious TENETS” ?
I didn't.
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnaswell seeing that the day is almost over, ill be nice to you materialists, even though you've been horrible to me!
I am also happy with you smile and nod. It's not every day you learn something new. And are happy about it. And smiling.
Nods and Smiles 🙂