Jump to content

Heaven's eternity or eternal earthly wealth?

heaven or wealth?  

39 members have voted

  1. 1. heaven or wealth?

    • Wait for heaven
      21
    • Give God the finger
      7
    • other
      11


Recommended Posts

Darwin published his book 'On the origin of species by means of natural selection' in 1859.

 

This man was born in 1894, he was just as intelligent - probably a lot more so - than Darwin and he didn't allow Darwin's proof of evolution effect either his scientific work nor his religious belief.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amnh.org%2Feducation%2Fresources%2Frfl%2Fweb%2Fessaybooks%2Fcosmic%2Fp_lemaitre.html&ei=G-vHVLm-HJT77AaHp4HQDQ&usg=AFQjCNHEx8ScEwXZwrpWJidVLTfalGH9wQ&cad=rja

 

So what do you think evolution has got to do with religion?

 

I don't think religion has anything to do with evolution, however because evolution conflicts with (some) religious word views those concerned set out to debunk it. One of your posted links being a prime example.

 

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/faqs-mainmenu-54.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think religion has anything to do with evolution, however because evolution conflicts with (some) religious word views those concerned set out to debunk it. One of your posted links being a prime example.

 

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/faqs-mainmenu-54.html

 

The only way I think it conflicts with religion is that it would support my theory ( not in the scientific sense of theory :) ) that any Creator would be so far removed from our intellectual level that we are reduced to holding the same - or probably less - interest to any God as insects have to us.

 

Doesn't go along with the hubristic notion that 'we are special unto God'.

 

Also doesn't prove the non existence of a God either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The comment wasn't about comparing a meal with belief it was about being undecided.

Looks like it kinda backfired on you then

If you're undecided you have no views one way or the other and people shouldn't assume that you have until you make your mind up, or spin a coin.

 

We're in agreement on that one aren't we?

Of course. An absence of belief is not a belief or a view itself, we're agreed on that one aren't we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only way I think it conflicts with religion is that it would support my theory ( not in the scientific sense of theory :) ) that any Creator would be so far removed from our intellectual level that we are reduced to holding the same - or probably less - interest to any God as insects have to us.

 

Doesn't go along with the hubristic notion that 'we are special unto God'.

 

Also doesn't prove the non existence of a God either.

 

In that case, what's the point of even considering it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....mjw47, do everyone a favour and add an extra /QUOTE tag in square brackets to your next post to try and sort the broken quoting out

 

Never mind doesn't matter now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks like it kinda backfired on you thenOf course. An absence of belief is not a belief or a view itself, we're agreed on that one aren't we?

 

Well, it could be argued that an absence of belief has come about only after some consideration has been given to the idea of belief couldn't it?

 

Giving no thought whatsoever to something would simply mean you hadn't thought of it, you weren't aware of it's existence, you wouldn't use it as a description of your position.

 

Therefore, if you wish to be described as having an absence of belief - particularly if you try to claim it is part of the definition of what you are - then it is a view that you have arrived at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, it could be argued that an absence of belief has come about only after some consideration has been given to the idea of belief couldn't it?

 

Giving no thought whatsoever to something would simply mean you hadn't thought of it, you weren't aware of it's existence, you wouldn't use it as a description of your position.

 

Therefore, if you wish to be described as having an absence of belief - particularly if you try to claim it is part of the definition of what you are - then it is a view that you have arrived at.

 

Do you agree that absence of belief is not a belief?

Edited by RootsBooster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In that case, what's the point of even considering it?

 

Didn't you bring up the subject in a reply to Harvey19?

 

And you then referred to Abiogenesis in a reply to me.

 

So what's your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn't you bring up the subject in a reply to Harvey19?

 

And you then referred to Abiogenesis in a reply to me.

 

So what's your point?

 

Huh, no I don't think so.

 

My point is this unknown, undetectable creator of yours may as well not exist.

 

Just a thought, what do you think the Earth would be like without a creator?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the next step in the evolution chain for man ?

What will we evolve into ?

If we are so positive about the evolution process surely there must be an insight into what the future holds as well as what happened in the past but this never seems to be discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you agree that absence of belief is not a belief?

 

Not really, if you have given some thought to whether or not you believe in something and decided not to then you presumably have a belief that it would be incorrect to hold that view, and therefore you could refer to it as a belief if you so wish.

 

Tell me, when did you become obsessed with semantics?

 

And when did you develop into the type of person who likes to hand out advice to others and then fail miserably to take it himself?

 

Page 17 post 326 where you made yourself foolish when accusing me of posting under another name.

 

We are now on Page 26 post 512 and you're still here. :)

 

Flamingjimmy seems to have disappeared though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I good proportion of the small number of "scientists" listed there are not evolutionary biologists. And most have ties to the Wedge movement and dodgy creationist/Christian organisations.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism

 

Typical sample:

 

Christine B. Beaucage, Ph.D. Mathematics, State University of New York at Stony Brook. Author of “Taste and See”, which appears to be a novel. No academic affiliation found.

 

Stephen J. Cheesman, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Toronto. No information on research or current academic affiliation found. Appears to be involved in various ministries.

 

Shun Yan Cheung, Associate Professor of Computer Science, Emory University. Has some publications in an unrelated field. Hardcore creationist who runs a webpage presenting the overwhelming evidence for the accuracy of the Bible and the falsity of evolution targeted at non-specialists. All the standard creationist PRATTs are there.

 

Donald Clark, Ph.D. Physical Biochemistry, Louisiana State University. Currently Vice President of Development and Medical Affairs at Houston Biotechnology Inc. (no updated information about the company located), and contributor to the Creation Moments website. Young earth creationist who rejects astronomy as well as biology since it conflicts with his reading of the Bible, saying that “[w]e must interpret our physical observations based on the scripture and not interpret the scripture based on our physical observations.”

 

Karl Duff, Sc.D. Mechanical Engineering, MIT. Young earth creationist who has written plenty of creationist and anti-evolutionary screeds.[90] Also on the Flood Science Review panel for In Jesus’ Name Productions,[91] who apparently wants to make a movie about the Flood that “could have historic impact […] if the science upon which it is based can be sufficiently defended. It could even represent a significant challenge to the validity of the theory of Evolution.” Duff is not a scientist, and has no academic affiliation. Instead he is the author of books such as “Dating, Intimacy, and the Teenage Years”.

 

 

Those so-called "scientists" are a very poor reason to remain on the fence. Also, that website is funded by creationist/ID organisations intent on dressing up their nonsense as science.

 

 

 

Really? How many Ph.D qualifications do you possess?

 

There are plenty of Atheists prepared to believe Richard Dawkins version of events although his qualification is in Biology and there are Scientists with qualifications in Physics that either believe in some possibility of intelligent design, or at the very least have some level of doubt on the matter.

 

Including this guy.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CFwQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fculture%2Ftvandradio%2F11143875%2FProf-Brian-Cox-Theres-a-naivety-in-saying-there-is-no-God.html&ei=3sbHVOKJC-jW7Qa0s4GQCw&usg=AFQjCNGz2rKByCL98snDO-TFzSoI03c9tw&bvm=bv.84349003,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

That's the thing, there is disagreement amongst highly intelligent people as to what's going on.

 

I do not regard myself as highly intelligent,just intelligent enough to have some grasp of how little I know.

 

Which in fairness, makes me a bit brighter than a lot of people who appear to be under the impression that they know just about everything. :)

 

To me the only logical position to adopt is Agnostic, ' I do not know ' which is an honest acceptance of the way things stand at present.

 

The fact is that whatever they say, no one knows I'm simply accepting the truth of that fact.

 

Get one thing straight here mate: the majority of those "scientists" listed on that pitiful list are not scientists - or they are not scientists within the field of evolution and biology. Of the scientists that are within the field, none of them have published peer-reviewed papers debunking evolution. And neither have they published peer-reviewed papers supporting creationism/ID. The reason for that is because they can't debunk evolution and they have nothing scientific supporting creationism/ID. So all you've got is a small list of so-called scientists who are heavily invested in creationism/ID and Christianity with nothing to show for it except their own opinion and religious bias.

 

It's embarassing you'd even post that list. Especially when the National Center for Science Education have repeatedly torn their nonsense apart - not just in the academic field, but also in court. In fact here is the ruling by Judge Jones at the Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover trial "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". In reference to whether Intelligent Design is science Judge Jones wrote ID "is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community".

 

 

Which in fairness, makes me a bit brighter than a lot of people who appear to be under the impression that they know just about everything.

 

Anything you say mate. Especially if it makes you feel better about yourself.

Edited by Ryedo40

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.