sethpayne Posted September 11, 2015 Posted September 11, 2015 On the subject of evolution:http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-both-belief-and-unbelief-in-a-supreme-being/One can believe in both God and Evolution Hold on. I thought it was NAMIRS that promotes heresy, not the Interpreter!
TheSkepticChristian Posted September 11, 2015 Posted September 11, 2015 Speaking of predictions. What think ye ? It says "This paper evaluates 22 fundamental predictions of evolutionary theory"Only 22 predictions? The theory of Evolution makes thousands of predictions, and they have been proven to be correct. I have not read his Paper, but i wonder why his paper is not peer-reviewed for scientific scrutiny. PS He talks about Darwin's predictions, he doesn't talk about the thousands of predictions made by modern biologists.
thesometimesaint Posted September 11, 2015 Posted September 11, 2015 Speaking of predictions. What think ye ?https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/ The Discovery Institute is not trustworthy.SEE Wedge Strategyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy 1
strappinglad Posted September 11, 2015 Posted September 11, 2015 If the message is incorrect ,fine. If you just don't like the messenger ...
thesometimesaint Posted September 11, 2015 Posted September 11, 2015 If the message is incorrect ,fine. If you just don't like the messenger ... The message isn't correct. In order to work for the Discovery Institute they must sign a essentially religious pledge SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute#Religious_agenda/The court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions,"[10][12][14] and the Institute's manifesto, the Wedge Document,[15] describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."[16][17] It was the court's opinion that intelligent design was merely a redressing of creationism and that, as such, it was not a scientific proposition.
TheSkepticChristian Posted September 11, 2015 Posted September 11, 2015 The message isn't correct. strappinglad never gives a specific example in his own words, he only links to websites.
why me Posted September 11, 2015 Posted September 11, 2015 (edited) There are many forms of liberalism and each form is related to the capitalist ideology. For example, there is neoliberalism, modern liberalism, classical liberalism, neo-classical liberalism etc. Of course in USA politics, the word liberal does have a particular meaning but like the conservatives, they also support the capitalist ideology. In US terminology the word liberal does take on an individual meaning but the system of governance is liberalism, somewhat closer to classical liberalism. https://mises.org/library/what-classical-liberalism "Classical liberalism" is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism. The qualifying "classical" is now usually necessary, in English-speaking countries at least (but not, for instance, in France), because liberalism has come to be associated with wide-ranging interferences with private property and the market on behalf of egalitarian goals. This version of liberalism — if such it can still be called — is sometimes designated as "social," or (erroneously) "modern" or the "new," liberalism. Here we shall use liberalism to signify the classical variety. Americans need to understand that the terms conservative and liberal in relation to american politics is used to show an artifical difference between the two. But both support a liberalist economy as defined above. However the difference is mainly in the social areas. So, in the OP, the church is mainly talking about social liberals. During the age of multiply and replenish the earth which was the church policy in the past, social liberals would have supported the pill and abortion, welfare etc. The church could not support such policies and so, if a member were a social liberal they could be going against doctrine or church policy. Edited September 11, 2015 by why me 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted September 11, 2015 Posted September 11, 2015 (edited) They are looking at the same object through different lenses So what is the purpose of the Badlands Guardian face? Please tell me it's purpose from a spiritual perspective. Edited September 11, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
strappinglad Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 strappinglad never gives a specific example in his own words, he only links to websites. I am not a scientist. My degree is piled neither higher nor deeper. The gentleman who wrote the article has a PhD in biophysics. You can assume that because he writes for the Discovery Institute and teaches at a Christian college , that he is both stupid and evil. Comments about him on blogs etc. are all full of ad hominem slurs. To me that is a sure sign that what he has to say has some value.
TheSkepticChristian Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 (edited) The gentleman who wrote the article has a PhD in biophysics.. So? There are more scientists that believe in Bigfoot and publish Bigfoot "evidence". . You can assume that because he writes for the Discovery Institute and teaches at a Christian college , that he is both stupid and evil. Comments about him on blogs etc. are all full of ad hominem slurs. No, thesometimesaint pointed that out, not me. Please tell us what he is saying, and point to a specific argument. Edited September 12, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
Calm Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 Comments about him on blogs etc. are all full of ad hominem slurs. To me that is a sure sign that what he has to say has some value.And yet if a guy is a idiot or jerk, how else would you think people would generally respond (besides ignoring him)?
strappinglad Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 Listen to him and read his work. Then decide if he is part of the tin hat crowd. I don't find him irrational and he does not come across as a jerk so read the intro of the link I posted, then pick one of the predictions he speaks about. One does not have to agree with his point of view, but to criticize without even a brief review is unfair. Personally I have read them all. I have found some more persuasive than others but I found nothing " jerky" about it.
Calm Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 (edited) I am just saying (speaking generally) being called names is sometimes deserved so I don't see how it could be a sure sign that someone has said something of value. I usually agree with what you have to say, but this measure of value I find unwise.I definitely agree that if one chooses to criticize writings, one should familiarize oneself with them first. Don't think one has to read everything someone writes before judging them an unreliable source or someone who lacks credibilty. At least a brief review sounds fair in most cases unless there is a huge red flag...for example if someone started out their argument with the premise the earth was flat, I would rarely decide to read anymore. Not saying this is the case as I have read anything at the link and still debating whether I want to get into that aspect of the conversation. Edited September 12, 2015 by Calm
Calm Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 So I read the first five or so. I obviously do not have the background to be able to accurately judge his work. But I am not really seeing anything that doesn't just require a refinement of theory as opposed to throwing the whole thing out. What would you say are the most striking of his claims? And have you checked what others in the field have to say about them?
The Nehor Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 The gentleman who wrote the article has a PhD in biophysics. You can assume that because he writes for the Discovery Institute and teaches at a Christian college , that he is both stupid and evil. Comments about him on blogs etc. are all full of ad hominem slurs. To me that is a sure sign that what he has to say has some value. I do not think he is evil and stupid. He is either stupid and believes the things the Discovery Institute says or he knows it is bunk and teaches it anyway and is evil. He doesn't have to be both though I suppose he could be.
strappinglad Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 As an exercise in contrasting and comparison I present the following link. After reading both the links I wonder who is the jerk. Who backs up what is said with references , even from peer reviewed journals. Who presents opinion as fact? http://religionvirus.blogspot.ca/2010/07/dr-cornelius-g-hunter-biochemist-and.html My background in math has me question the " happy accidents" needed for DNA and molecular functions. DNA is code. Any other code we see has been produced by the human mind. 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 (edited) My background in math has me question the " happy accidents" needed for DNA and molecular functions. DNA is code. Any other code we see has been produced by the human mind. You assume "Happy accidents" and DNA as we know it are required for life, but how do you know that? How do you know there is not an infinite number of possibilities? So I read the first five or so. I obviously do not have the background to be able to accurately judge his work. But I am not really seeing anything that doesn't just require a refinement of theory as opposed to throwing the whole thing out. What would you say are the most striking of his claims? And have you checked what others in the field have to say about them? Bravo! Very nice response, but how do you feel about the other scientific theory? https://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6045/1024.abstract Edited September 12, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
Calm Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 Not much since there is nothing there to read.
thesometimesaint Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 So what is the purpose of the Badlands Guardian face? Please tell me it's purpose from a spiritual perspective. I don't know that there is any purpose to the face other than the human mind is hard wired to go to completion. In this case a human face, that is why smilies work.
TheSkepticChristian Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 (edited) Not much since there is nothing there to read. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7338/full/nature09826.html http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha02210k.html What do you think? Propaganda? Edited September 12, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
Calm Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 Again, I think I don't have credentials to evaluate them and would need to search out what others were saying about them.
TheSkepticChristian Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 (edited) Again, I think I don't have credentials to evaluate them and would need to search out what others were saying about them. Here is a new Paper that examines what others (the very tiny minority that disagrees) are saying. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5 Again, I think I don't have credentials and you don't have to, please see why What do you think? I am sure you are smart. Edited September 12, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
TheSkepticChristian Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 I don't know that there is any purpose to the face other than the human mind is hard wired to go to completion. In this case a human face, that is why smilies work. So please tell me how do you know the Earth has a purpose?
thesometimesaint Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 So please tell me how do you know the Earth has a purpose? It is a good place to put all our stuff.
TheSkepticChristian Posted September 13, 2015 Posted September 13, 2015 (edited) It is a good place to put all our stuff. I was simply asking you for your testimony and how did you receive it? Edited September 13, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
Recommended Posts