ChatterBank6 mins ago
More Than 1500 Years Ago, The Prophet Habakkuk Said. How Long How Long? (Hab 2:3)
118 Answers
When will God destroy the wicked? If so, how much longer must we wait? Such questions are asked by people throughout the earth. Where can we find the answers? We can do so in divinely inspired prophetic words about God’s appointed time. They assure us that Jehovah will soon execute judgment upon all wicked ones. Only then will the earth become completely “filled with the knowing of the glory of Jehovah as the waters themselves cover over the sea.” That is the prophetic promise found in God’s Sacred Word at Habakkuk 2:14.
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.
Naomi; It is true that I'm not a practicing scientist but I have more than a passing interest in it - do you?
Dawkins fails, not only on his scientific assertions, he fails miserably on theology (of which I also have more than a passing interest).
On his scientific twaddle about selfish genes, Denis Noble who's academic standing puts him head & shoulders above Dawkins (check him out), completely rejects the neo-Darwinism of Dawkins for what it is - a contentious philosophical postulate, not an empirical discovery.
Noble has written that genes are not agents, whether selfish or unselfish (I quote) 'There is nothing alive in the DNA molecule alone, if I could completely isolate a whole genome, put it in a petri dish with as many nutrients as we may wish, I could keep it for 10,000 years & it could do nothing other than slowly degrade'
As for Dawkins' grasp of theology, Terry Eagleton (himself a sort of reformed atheist) writing in the LRB about 'The God Delusion' famously begins his verdict by asking us to "imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the 'Book of British Birds', and you have a rough idea of what it feel like to read Dawkins on theology".
I rest my case.
Dawkins fails, not only on his scientific assertions, he fails miserably on theology (of which I also have more than a passing interest).
On his scientific twaddle about selfish genes, Denis Noble who's academic standing puts him head & shoulders above Dawkins (check him out), completely rejects the neo-Darwinism of Dawkins for what it is - a contentious philosophical postulate, not an empirical discovery.
Noble has written that genes are not agents, whether selfish or unselfish (I quote) 'There is nothing alive in the DNA molecule alone, if I could completely isolate a whole genome, put it in a petri dish with as many nutrients as we may wish, I could keep it for 10,000 years & it could do nothing other than slowly degrade'
As for Dawkins' grasp of theology, Terry Eagleton (himself a sort of reformed atheist) writing in the LRB about 'The God Delusion' famously begins his verdict by asking us to "imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the 'Book of British Birds', and you have a rough idea of what it feel like to read Dawkins on theology".
I rest my case.
While I find Dawkins religious arguments more about the mocking the low hanging fruit of extremists and concentrating on firing insults at everyone with intelligence enough to consider the possibility of a spiritual existence/realm, presumably to cover for a lack of real argument (which is why I couldn't put up with reading his book beyond about a third of the way in): nevertheless a counterargument that states DNA isn't alive because on it's own it simply would deteriorate, is comparable to claiming computer code isn't a programme because if you leave it on the disk it doesn't run.
A bit of a nonsense really.
A bit of a nonsense really.
Surely, it is only those who think they have Holy Spirit who convince themselves that only they truly understand the Bible ?
The reality being more a case of having opted to bind themselves by blind faith to someone else's version of reality, a version that was formed without proof, and having done so have a desperate need to defend that view at all cost, or risk losing both face, and more devastatingly, that to which they have chosen to anchor their whole life ?
The reality being more a case of having opted to bind themselves by blind faith to someone else's version of reality, a version that was formed without proof, and having done so have a desperate need to defend that view at all cost, or risk losing both face, and more devastatingly, that to which they have chosen to anchor their whole life ?
OG //nevertheless a counterargument that states DNA isn't alive because on it's own it simply would deteriorate, is comparable to claiming computer code isn't a programme because if you leave it on the disk it doesn't run.
A bit of a nonsense really.//
A specious argument, it is nothing at all like a computer disk, - a weird analogy.
A bit of a nonsense really.//
A specious argument, it is nothing at all like a computer disk, - a weird analogy.
Borrowed from Audin obviously
Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone,
Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone,
Silence ABer and with muffled drum
Bring out the coffin, goodlife has re-come.
Let aeroplanes circle moaning overhead
Scribbling on the computer the message God Is Dead,
Put crepe bows round the white necks of the public doves,
Let the Moderators wear black cotton gloves.
Goodlife isn't my North, my South, my East and West,
Nor my working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that he had shut up for ever: I was wrong.
The stars are not wanted now: put out every one;
Pack up the moon and read the Sun;
Pour away the Retro's wine and sweep up naomi's words;
For goodlife says can ever come to any good
Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone,
Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone,
Silence ABer and with muffled drum
Bring out the coffin, goodlife has re-come.
Let aeroplanes circle moaning overhead
Scribbling on the computer the message God Is Dead,
Put crepe bows round the white necks of the public doves,
Let the Moderators wear black cotton gloves.
Goodlife isn't my North, my South, my East and West,
Nor my working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that he had shut up for ever: I was wrong.
The stars are not wanted now: put out every one;
Pack up the moon and read the Sun;
Pour away the Retro's wine and sweep up naomi's words;
For goodlife says can ever come to any good
vulcan42 //Definition of a "passing interest".
An interest that does not stay very long.
Since when has a passing interest become a reliable authority? //
Cripes! is nobody reading my posts ? I said I have MORE than a passing interest in science. What about you, not being able to read must be something of a handicap.?
An interest that does not stay very long.
Since when has a passing interest become a reliable authority? //
Cripes! is nobody reading my posts ? I said I have MORE than a passing interest in science. What about you, not being able to read must be something of a handicap.?
Vulcan, I can't imagine why Khandro thinks Dawkins should have any interest at all in theology. Religion and its impact upon the world he certainly takes an interest in, but theology, no. Why would he? Perhaps Khandro mistakenly conflates the two.
Khandro, I'm in the process of checking Denis Noble out and at the moment he sounds to me to be an old man who's hedging his bets.
Khandro, I'm in the process of checking Denis Noble out and at the moment he sounds to me to be an old man who's hedging his bets.
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.