If You Had A Twin, But Didn't Realise...
Family Life3 mins ago
Which God Are You A Witness?
88 Answers
The atheist of today, thinks that in this modern nuclear, space age it has become old-fashioned to believe in an invisible god.
Yet today every worshiper who claims to have a atheist god is challenged to act as witness for his god. In fact, all the gods, who are worshiped as gods are challenged to produce their witnesses to prove that they are gods or are the one living and true God.
Every reasonable person will agree that there is no use in worshiping and serving a false god.
Yet today every worshiper who claims to have a atheist god is challenged to act as witness for his god. In fact, all the gods, who are worshiped as gods are challenged to produce their witnesses to prove that they are gods or are the one living and true God.
Every reasonable person will agree that there is no use in worshiping and serving a false god.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by goodlife. 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.
LG and Waldo, your efforts to reason with Goodlife and get him to consider the morality of quoting a scientist out of context (thereby creating a false impression of what that scientist actually believes) assume, firstly, that he can follow the basic argument, and, secondly, that he can grasp the moral point that misrepresentation is equivalent to a lie. It is possible that these necessary preconditions of comprehension are in his case lacking.
khandro #modeller; As I pointed out previously, this is a false and illogical syllogism you are propounding#
And what am I propounding ? I asked a simple question and for once got a simple answer. Did I draw a conclusion anywhere in this thread ?
As for the question of it being illogical that of course is your opinion .
Others will have their own.
And what am I propounding ? I asked a simple question and for once got a simple answer. Did I draw a conclusion anywhere in this thread ?
As for the question of it being illogical that of course is your opinion .
Others will have their own.
naomi; Yes he responded as he promised;
http://
http://
Yet, are the modern gods and their worshipers any better than the ancient ones? The Hindu religion alone has millions of gods. Buddhists, Catholics, Confucianists, Jews, Protestants, Shintoists, Taoists, and many others have their own gods. In Africa, Asia, and elsewhere, the forces of nature, animals, and objects are worshiped as gods. Nationalism and materialism,atheism a person’s self, have become gods, in that many people give them their main devotion. Which way of worship actually represents the one who declares: “I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. With the exception of me there is no God”—Isaiah 45:5.
That why we see today atheist and evolutionists adopt the same tactics Stupid crowds, what do they know. All reputable scientists accept evolution! Not so. As a Discover magazine said: “Now that hallowed theory is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists.
The lie: "All reputable scientists accept evolution! Not so. As a Discover magazine said: “Now that hallowed theory is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists."
The truth: James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?", Discover, October 1980, p. 88:
"Charles Darwin's brilliant theory of evolution, published in 1859, had a stunning impact on scientific and religious thought and forever changed man's perception of himself. Now that hallowed theory is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.... Most of the debate will center on one key question: Does the three-billion-year-old process of evolution creep at a steady pace, or is it marked by long periods of inactivity punctuated by short bursts of rapid change? Is Evolution a tortoise or a hare? Darwin's widely accepted view -- that evolution proceeds steadily, at a crawl -- favors the tortoise. But two paleontologists, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, are putting their bets on the hare."
Gould (who gave us punctuated evolution) is frequently quoted misleadingly by people who know the words, but not the meaning of "Thou shalt not lie".
The truth: James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?", Discover, October 1980, p. 88:
"Charles Darwin's brilliant theory of evolution, published in 1859, had a stunning impact on scientific and religious thought and forever changed man's perception of himself. Now that hallowed theory is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.... Most of the debate will center on one key question: Does the three-billion-year-old process of evolution creep at a steady pace, or is it marked by long periods of inactivity punctuated by short bursts of rapid change? Is Evolution a tortoise or a hare? Darwin's widely accepted view -- that evolution proceeds steadily, at a crawl -- favors the tortoise. But two paleontologists, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, are putting their bets on the hare."
Gould (who gave us punctuated evolution) is frequently quoted misleadingly by people who know the words, but not the meaning of "Thou shalt not lie".
No,Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay on evolution in the January 1987 issue of the science magazine Discover. Intent on overkill, in this five-page article he proclaimed evolution to be a fact 12 times! Excerpts from the article follow:
Darwin’s lifework was “establishing the fact of evolution.” “The fact of evolution is as well established as anything in science (as secure as the revolution of the earth about the sun).” By the time of Darwin’s death, “nearly all thinking people came to accept the fact of evolution.” Gould spoke of it as “secure fact” and “the fact of transmutation.” “Evolution is also a fact of nature.” “Evolution is as well established as any scientific fact.” “Our confidence in the fact of evolution rests upon copious data.” He speaks of biologists’ agreement “about the fact of evolution.” “Theologians haven’t been troubled by the fact of evolution.” “I know hundreds of scientists who share a conviction about the fact of evolution.
At one point in the article, Gould said: “I don’t want to sound like a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys,’ but biologists have reached a consensus . . . about the fact of evolution.” But really, does that not sound like “a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys’”
And Molecular biologist Michael Denton referred to this glib talk about evolution’s being a fact and dismissed it with these words: “Now of course such claims are simply nonsense. It’s much more than nonsense. It’s fraud. It deceives and misrepresents the thuth. And I say is because you like believing a lie.
@goodlife.
Still, despite repeated requests, cutting and pasting without attribution? Your last screed, virtually word for word, copied into other science forums shows its provenance as being more empty prose from Watchtower.
So. once again, we have someone elses words which you are presenting here as your own - intellectual dishonesty.
We cannot even be sure if you actually understand the copy that you paste, since we never see words from you that demonstrate your comprehension. Really- cut and pasting like you do? A trained monkey could do it... Is this what you want to aspire to? Pushing buttons on a keyboard to enter long tracts of words making arguments you only half understand? Is that the sum total of your ambition?
Have you actually, you know, read Michael Dentons book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" yourself, goodlife? I have.
It is garbage. It is full of error and misrepresentation of what evolution is. It has been critically mauled, and I know of no body of reputable scientists that have any time for it. At least one reviewer said that it would fail peer review, the arguments presented in it were that bad.
It even has its own wiki page, detailing the some of the key problems and misunderstanding that were rife in the book.
http://
So, to recap -you claim that there are reputable scientists that refute evolution. And the evidence you cite for this assertion? Sparse and unconvincing - 1 scientist, who published 1 book, dismissed by peers, back in 1985? Do you know why he thought evolution was in crisis? what his main argument was? More importantly, did he propose an alternative, and do you know what that actually was?
On this evidence, your notion that evolution is a "theory in crisis", with reputable scientists challenging the orthodoxy is absurd and can safely be dismissed.
You edited your cut and paste a little - not sure why - so I will include the part you missed off here. It would have preceded the rubbish you did C&P
"In a book review in The New York Times Book Review magazine, biologist Richard Dawkins wrote: “We are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt.” He then said that to consider creation “in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes."
Dawkins statement was correct, as was Gould to assert that the theory of evolution is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. The only people who have any issues with it are barnpot fundamentists like you who insist on a literal interpretation of a book of folk legend and a young earth created by god around 6-10 thousand years ago.
The evidence proves your fairy tale wrong goodlife, and continually asserting otherwise only makes your faith and your religion more absurd, and more the object of ridicule.
Still, despite repeated requests, cutting and pasting without attribution? Your last screed, virtually word for word, copied into other science forums shows its provenance as being more empty prose from Watchtower.
So. once again, we have someone elses words which you are presenting here as your own - intellectual dishonesty.
We cannot even be sure if you actually understand the copy that you paste, since we never see words from you that demonstrate your comprehension. Really- cut and pasting like you do? A trained monkey could do it... Is this what you want to aspire to? Pushing buttons on a keyboard to enter long tracts of words making arguments you only half understand? Is that the sum total of your ambition?
Have you actually, you know, read Michael Dentons book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" yourself, goodlife? I have.
It is garbage. It is full of error and misrepresentation of what evolution is. It has been critically mauled, and I know of no body of reputable scientists that have any time for it. At least one reviewer said that it would fail peer review, the arguments presented in it were that bad.
It even has its own wiki page, detailing the some of the key problems and misunderstanding that were rife in the book.
http://
So, to recap -you claim that there are reputable scientists that refute evolution. And the evidence you cite for this assertion? Sparse and unconvincing - 1 scientist, who published 1 book, dismissed by peers, back in 1985? Do you know why he thought evolution was in crisis? what his main argument was? More importantly, did he propose an alternative, and do you know what that actually was?
On this evidence, your notion that evolution is a "theory in crisis", with reputable scientists challenging the orthodoxy is absurd and can safely be dismissed.
You edited your cut and paste a little - not sure why - so I will include the part you missed off here. It would have preceded the rubbish you did C&P
"In a book review in The New York Times Book Review magazine, biologist Richard Dawkins wrote: “We are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt.” He then said that to consider creation “in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes."
Dawkins statement was correct, as was Gould to assert that the theory of evolution is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. The only people who have any issues with it are barnpot fundamentists like you who insist on a literal interpretation of a book of folk legend and a young earth created by god around 6-10 thousand years ago.
The evidence proves your fairy tale wrong goodlife, and continually asserting otherwise only makes your faith and your religion more absurd, and more the object of ridicule.
Latest Posts
Are The West In The Grip Of The Woke...
News6 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
They Just Can't Help It Can They?
News12 mins ago
Home & Garden14 mins ago
Reform Gaining Huge Numbers Of Votes...
News15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.