Bubble Witch Saga 3 Industrial Deals Beauty Best Books of the Month STEM nav_sap_hiltonhonors_launch Learn more about Amazon Music Unlimited PCB for Musical Instruments Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Tote Bags Home Gift Guide Off to College Home Gift Guide Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon BradsStatus BradsStatus BradsStatus  Introducing Echo Show Introducing All-New Fire HD 10 with Alexa hands-free $149.99 Kindle Oasis, unlike any Kindle you've ever held Shop Now ToyHW17_gno
Customer Discussions > Science forum

The fallacy of Darwinism and the evil associated


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 2526-2550 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012, 9:52:46 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012, 9:53:32 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012, 9:54:33 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 1, 2012, 9:55:56 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012, 10:01:32 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
Again, with the misunderstandings. A string is simply a 1-brane. Large expanded brains serve to provide boundary conditions and spacial separation. They do have their own dynamics, but they don't come into play within a universe too much. You really should learn about string theory before you begin spouting off about what you don't bother to learn.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012, 10:06:07 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012, 10:17:24 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
"which string theory?"

All of them. M theory is a different perspective on the 5 flavors of string theory (Type I, Type IIB. Type IIA, Heterotic-E, and Heterotic-0), with a little 11- dimensional supergravity thrown in. These underlying theories serve as sort of a foundation. The true theory form which these are simply limits has yet to be formulated.

As a matter of fact, the true importance of branes can be found in there very name. The "D" in D-brane actually stands for "Dirichlet" as in "Dirichlet boundary conditions" which they allow to be imposed on strings.

Posted on Jul 1, 2012, 10:40:23 PM PDT
D. Yarnell says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012, 10:47:34 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
Whining because you and every other creationist don't have any actual evidence to present will not change that fact.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012, 11:47:29 PM PDT
At least you got the "stupid as rocks" part right.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012, 1:31:45 AM PDT
Re Yarnell, 7-1 10:40 PM: "Us poor creationists are stupid as rocks because we reject the so-called conclusive evidence that darwinists present." Exactly. (As Walker correctly noted.)

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012, 2:59:46 AM PDT
DY: why you are repulsed by the idea of a Creator God

Not true. That is simply your interpretation of people who like to see evidence of *stuff*. There is no evidence and therefore there is no need to bring in the concept of a creator god. There are perfectly adequate explanations of how everything is without supernatural elements.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012, 3:10:17 AM PDT
DY: Show some patience and tolerance toward us as we drift through time to oblivion.

As you show towards those that don't see things the way you do?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012, 5:04:59 AM PDT
"Us poor creationists are stupid as rocks "

Nobody here has called you stupid (until now).

"The world is flat. "

People thought that, until they had evidence that made them change their mind. Some people also assumed that the bible was right about creation until they had evidence of deep time and natural processes for evolution.

Two words: The Enlightenment.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012, 6:39:22 AM PDT
Rock Head says:
Eratosthenes, scientist, mathematician and chief librarian of the Great Library at Alexandria, around 240 BCE demonstrated mathematically that the Earth is, in fact, round and made a reasonable estimate for the circumference.

Y'all have a nice day,
Rock Head

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012, 6:56:05 AM PDT
Tero says:
Actual historians have proven that the bible events took place in the Eastern Mediterranean shores. Some events. Neighboring kingdoms existed. But they never went to Egypt.

Study of the scripture shows a collectiom of oral legend tampered with numerous editors. The first written legend was usually not written by a Witness.

Ancient people understood the process and used it as foundation of their culture.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012, 8:39:23 AM PDT
Tero

I think the issue is that the bible can still be an important historical document, and a source of spiritual inspiration, without needing to be factually true in every little detail. That's certainly what I learned at school (in the UK) 50 years ago. In some ways I regret that religious education has been banned from US schools, as it give people a naive and idealised view of what it actually has to say.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012, 8:50:26 AM PDT
Tero: Study of the scripture shows a collectiom of oral legend tampered with numerous editors.

BPL: This is the frequent conclusion of the "Higher Criticism" school, but it is one school, not a consensus. Unfortunately the HCs have a habit of referring to their theories as "the current beliefs of scholars in this field."

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012, 8:51:57 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 2, 2012, 8:52:51 AM PDT
A. Caplan says:
CMJ: That's certainly what I learned at school (in the UK) 50 years ago. In some ways I regret that religious education has been banned from US schools, as it give people a naive and idealised view of what it actually has to say.
>The question is, whose interpretation of the bible and its meaning did you learn in the UK? In the US religious education is aprivate matter and none of the government's business.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012, 9:00:36 AM PDT
"whose interpretation of the bible and its meaning did you learn in the UK? "

It was taught as a text that we should have familiarity with --- something with which I agree, at least for understanding historical and literary references in the context of broader scholarship. There was no religious proselytizing, and it was assumed without question that things such as Noah's Ark and the Garden of Eden were fables rather than literal events.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012, 9:36:46 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 2, 2012, 9:38:54 AM PDT
Ms Janis,

While I began college as a ministerial student, I came to bible study by way of archeology, notably Heinrich Schliemann's discovery of ancient Troy. From that discovery I learned, at least, that ancient texts were neither mere fables nor historically accurate documents.

As you probably know and appreciate, much of the effort by "atheists" on these threads is to counteract the doctrine of biblical inerrancy supported by those evangelicals who want to pretend that their translation and interpretation of the bible is "holy writ." At the very least, such believers fail to recognize how near to idolatry they are (bibliolatry), and how like their Muslim counterparts that puts them. I had a conversation, several years ago, with a christian enthusiast who had convinced himself that a Muslim who wasn't intent on destroying all non-Muslim faithful wasn't a "true Muslim." I guess if one can decide who is a "true christian," it's a small step to deciding who is a "true" adherent to any other religion.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012, 9:53:54 AM PDT
Arthur Dent says:
Christine--Presumably you were taught the Anglican interpretation. I believe the Church of England was, and still is, the state religion. There is no such religious consensus in the US and we would have raging battles, starting with those who believe that Noah's Ark and the Garden of Eden were literal events rather than fables. Or, if we taught it the other way around, those who think that Noah's Ark and the Garden of Eden were fables rather than literal events. Unfortunately, Christians in the US are astonishingly ignorant of their own scriptures, suggesting that our homes and churches are doing a pretty lousy job of teaching about their own religions (see Religious Literacy by Stephen Prothero). Unlike Prothero, I do not think there is a constitutionally acceptable solution to this problem through the public schools.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012, 10:17:02 AM PDT
Dear Charles

I've come to understand that not all evangelicals feel this way. Check out the reviews of this guy

http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A30KCIVCBFLWMG/ref=cm_cr_rev_detpdp

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012, 10:18:06 AM PDT
James,

Yes, I take your point. There is an advantage to having a state religion --- basically sanctioned agnosticism in the UK!

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012, 10:29:16 AM PDT
Arthur Dent says:
It is an interesting phenomenon that citizens of European countries with state religions (now or formerly) seem to have little enthusiasm for religion generally, while the US, which is officially secular, has a vibrant religious scene (some would say, too vibrant). One of the founders (probably Madison) foresaw this and said that having a secular government would work out well both for the government and for the churches, and therefore for the people.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012, 11:01:34 AM PDT
Ms Janis,

I've read a number of that reviewers items. I agree: not all evangelicals hold the regressive views lamented in those reviews. Unfortunately, few are as well educated as that reviewer, and most of those folk are actively encouraged by their ministers to believe the preachments and accept the bible on faith that the preacher will rectify any confusion. Formal study of any language is intimidating, even more so one that uses an alien alphabet embedded in an ancient and unfamiliar social tradition.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Do homebuilders give buyers a false sense of security? 15 10 hours ago
Cassini Huygens mission ends tomorrow 2 12 hours ago
Archaeology Plus Other Fohrbidden Sciences. 3075 15 hours ago
Teacher Attacks Theory of Evolution 106 1 day ago
The Science Behind Fetal Pain-related Abortion Legislation 1341 3 days ago
This won't scare many away from going for it. Pro football. 18 7 days ago
NASA Confirms Falling Sea Levels For Two Years Amidst Media Blackout 5 8 days ago
Chemistry question 34 12 days ago
Good to use, but would you be allowed to? Reflective Roof Coatings. 11 12 days ago
Global warming is the most serious problem of our generation, part 4 (reboot) 9999 27 days ago
Space 6 29 days ago
Transposons - A new finding that we are made up of an accumulation of dead viruses, and that each of us is unique and can never be cloned exactly 17 Aug 21, 2017
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  112
Total posts:  4096
Initial post:  May 17, 2012
Latest post:  Sep 30, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers