Crosswords0 min ago
Life On Earth, Science Vs Religion
I don't wish to denigrate any individuals beliefs, but I am curious how this story is received by those who follow religion and the origins of the earth taught through religion.
Do some Christians take the biblical accounts of creation literally, believing that they describe exactly how the universe and human beings were created.
http://
Do some Christians take the biblical accounts of creation literally, believing that they describe exactly how the universe and human beings were created.
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jd_1984. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Naomi, BBB was referring to the MBE (male bovine excreta) churned out by EVD. There have been no insults directed at you, on the contrary you are hardly a stranger so scorn and mockery yourself as these two weapons emerge from your armoury as soon as anyone disagrees with you.
and of course
/I’m off to talk to some grown-ups. Bye. /
QED
and of course
/I’m off to talk to some grown-ups. Bye. /
QED
jomifl; You mean the question "Do some Christians take the biblical accounts of creation literally," ?
Surely the poster knew the answer to that fatuous query before posting, and that is; - only a few seriously weird, cave-dwelling types do, (even the Pope doesn't) and the rest of sensible, intelligent Christians see it as what it is, viz. a metaphor.
Go figure!
Surely the poster knew the answer to that fatuous query before posting, and that is; - only a few seriously weird, cave-dwelling types do, (even the Pope doesn't) and the rest of sensible, intelligent Christians see it as what it is, viz. a metaphor.
Go figure!
Good show, jd_1984.
I never did get a satisfactory answer, from naomi, as to what is so patronising and presumptious about asking someone "have you heard about X?"
Mikey4444 quit the thread, in favour of The Archers and my question about whether he thinks any/all/just EvD's choice of Ancient literature is "drivel" also remains unanswered.
Not that they're worth a jot but that looks like 2 points to me.
----
@Khandro
//Why should someone who has been accused of alleged dishonesty at some time (haven't we all?) be dismissed as being 100% wrong on every theory they have proposed?
22:58 Tue 20th Oct 2015//
It's a puzzle, isn't it. There's a trope, in fiction, where, in order to discredit *everything* someone says, it is only necessary to drive them mad. After you've read up about "gaslighting" you might begin to re-evaluate every poltergeist story you've ever heard.
The thief/fraudster faces a similar dilemma, of never being believed ever again but, in their case, it is self-inflicted. They desire a lifestyle beyond their means and everything they do is probably motivated by the desire for money. EvD didn't give 'the truth' to the world, as a gift, he set out to make money from it.
If you hold by the maxim that you are forbidden an opinion until you've read the book under discussion then you must acknowledge that those who evade the peer-reviewed science journal publication route succeed in even making money out of the people who disagree with them!
Basically, anyone can write a non-fiction book about anything and take your money. There are no laws saying that any of it has to be true.
I never did get a satisfactory answer, from naomi, as to what is so patronising and presumptious about asking someone "have you heard about X?"
Mikey4444 quit the thread, in favour of The Archers and my question about whether he thinks any/all/just EvD's choice of Ancient literature is "drivel" also remains unanswered.
Not that they're worth a jot but that looks like 2 points to me.
----
@Khandro
//Why should someone who has been accused of alleged dishonesty at some time (haven't we all?) be dismissed as being 100% wrong on every theory they have proposed?
22:58 Tue 20th Oct 2015//
It's a puzzle, isn't it. There's a trope, in fiction, where, in order to discredit *everything* someone says, it is only necessary to drive them mad. After you've read up about "gaslighting" you might begin to re-evaluate every poltergeist story you've ever heard.
The thief/fraudster faces a similar dilemma, of never being believed ever again but, in their case, it is self-inflicted. They desire a lifestyle beyond their means and everything they do is probably motivated by the desire for money. EvD didn't give 'the truth' to the world, as a gift, he set out to make money from it.
If you hold by the maxim that you are forbidden an opinion until you've read the book under discussion then you must acknowledge that those who evade the peer-reviewed science journal publication route succeed in even making money out of the people who disagree with them!
Basically, anyone can write a non-fiction book about anything and take your money. There are no laws saying that any of it has to be true.
@Khandro
You can use Twitter as a "cave dweller" geiger counter merely by following as many Americans as it takes for an evo vs. creationist debate to pop up and then chime in with anything remotely pro-evolution. They'll never give you any peace until you either start agreeing with them or you block them, or they block you.
Those turn-the-other-cheekers are the most vociferous, hound-like people on the planet and they don't even see themselves for what they are.
I pride myself on never preaching atheism and prefer others to reach it by their own thought processes. Meanwhile, these creationist types are the best at driving people towards atheism that I can think of. Long may they continue.
You can use Twitter as a "cave dweller" geiger counter merely by following as many Americans as it takes for an evo vs. creationist debate to pop up and then chime in with anything remotely pro-evolution. They'll never give you any peace until you either start agreeing with them or you block them, or they block you.
Those turn-the-other-cheekers are the most vociferous, hound-like people on the planet and they don't even see themselves for what they are.
I pride myself on never preaching atheism and prefer others to reach it by their own thought processes. Meanwhile, these creationist types are the best at driving people towards atheism that I can think of. Long may they continue.
The idea tha it is necessary to read a book to tell whether or not it is rubbish can be illustrated by the following book
Cosmic Manuscript by Dallas Thompson rating 4.75 out of 5 on Amazon
You only need a rudimentary understanding of physics and the solar system to see that it is rubbish within 10 seconds of picking it up.
Yet another money spinner by a charlatan but I expect many people would book a holiday at the centre of the Earth after reading this. (not with Thomas Cook obviously)
Cosmic Manuscript by Dallas Thompson rating 4.75 out of 5 on Amazon
You only need a rudimentary understanding of physics and the solar system to see that it is rubbish within 10 seconds of picking it up.
Yet another money spinner by a charlatan but I expect many people would book a holiday at the centre of the Earth after reading this. (not with Thomas Cook obviously)
What is also interesting is that if organic compounds can be so abundant on cold comets originating so far from the sun then is is not unreasonable that they would perhaps be formed more rapidly on planets nearer the sun where chemical reactions occur more rapidly because of higher concentration and pressure of the raw materials. Although much organic material must have been present when the earth 'condensed' we have little idea how many of these would have survived the process. It seems though that there must have been plenty of chemically reactive material available for the development of self replicating molecules that eventually led to life 'as we know it'.
// Was it really ,how do you know this?// (religion date from recently )
because if you dig down (= archeology ) you can find them but then .... they have a beginning or an earliest site ...... Alaca Hoyuk, I think in Turkey - no Catal Huyuk
and then and then you can use phrases like terminus post quem ( 'stop after which' ) and looks really intellectual
I havent checked my facts as I think steg is pushing a trolley
I havent bothered
because if you dig down (= archeology ) you can find them but then .... they have a beginning or an earliest site ...... Alaca Hoyuk, I think in Turkey - no Catal Huyuk
and then and then you can use phrases like terminus post quem ( 'stop after which' ) and looks really intellectual
I havent checked my facts as I think steg is pushing a trolley
I havent bothered
Hypo; //I pride myself on never preaching atheism and prefer others to reach it by their own thought processes.//
Good for you! You sound sometimes as though you were not too far remote from the sensible position of Agnosticism. Though we now know more than we once did about ourselves and surroundings, we still do not fully understand time or space (macro and micro) nor where we come from or where we are going. We don't know why every living creature needs to sleep (and dream). We don't know if we are alone in the universe or how the universe started (and why) and quite a lot more.
So it seems to me that those who wish to eschew any form of spiritual existence and believe that all these questions are within the remit of eventual human understanding, to simply say, "There probably is no God", and leave it at that.
Good for you! You sound sometimes as though you were not too far remote from the sensible position of Agnosticism. Though we now know more than we once did about ourselves and surroundings, we still do not fully understand time or space (macro and micro) nor where we come from or where we are going. We don't know why every living creature needs to sleep (and dream). We don't know if we are alone in the universe or how the universe started (and why) and quite a lot more.
So it seems to me that those who wish to eschew any form of spiritual existence and believe that all these questions are within the remit of eventual human understanding, to simply say, "There probably is no God", and leave it at that.
Khandro, I don't have a degree in neurology so cannot explain why most creatures do not need to sleep. Suffice to say that they don't. Here is a partial list of some of those that don't need to sleep.These contitute the majority of creatures (animals)on the planet
Creatures that don't sleep:
Protozoans (amoeba, ciliates, hydroids etc )
annelida (worms leeches)
Phoronids
crustaceans
gastropods (slugs, snails, whelks. Winkles)
bivalves shellfish
jellyfish, sea squirts, corals
insects
arachnids, (spiders, ticks)
tapeworms
roundworms
flukes (flatworms)
Creatures that don't sleep:
Protozoans (amoeba, ciliates, hydroids etc )
annelida (worms leeches)
Phoronids
crustaceans
gastropods (slugs, snails, whelks. Winkles)
bivalves shellfish
jellyfish, sea squirts, corals
insects
arachnids, (spiders, ticks)
tapeworms
roundworms
flukes (flatworms)
jomifl; I don't wish to insult them, but most of those hardly rank as animals at all! e.g. A jellyfish has no ears or eyes or nose and no brain or heart! They do not even have a head. Their body is almost totally made of water and is soft having no bones at all, so it is perhaps unsurprising that they don't sleep.
Not only do all the 'real' creatures sleep they all dream, as is demonstrated by their REM (rapid eye movement) sleep. The creature in which this is most pronounced is the Duck-billed Platypus, no one knows why;
http://
Not only do all the 'real' creatures sleep they all dream, as is demonstrated by their REM (rapid eye movement) sleep. The creature in which this is most pronounced is the Duck-billed Platypus, no one knows why;
http://
