Hedshaker
New member
Why don't apes in zoos turn into men? Are you so blinded by what you have been told about evolution you are incapable of separating fact from fantasy?
What! You've only just spotted this
Lol, sorry, couldn't resist :drum:
Why don't apes in zoos turn into men? Are you so blinded by what you have been told about evolution you are incapable of separating fact from fantasy?
Hi Michael, clearly you have no interest or use at all of any natural explanation for life being as it is, so I won't try. In your world there is no room for such a thing because you have already pre-concluded all the explanations you'll ever need: "God-Did-It".Dear Alwight,
No, actually I do know enough about Darwinism and his blind 'evolutionism', and could care less. No, I don't buy it for one minute. If some of the apes adapted to be men to adapt to their environment, then why are the other ones in zoos looking out instead of being men, looking in at them. Why didn't they also 'adapt' into men. You make very little sense and you've got blinders on, the both of you, to see anything really clearly. I hardly need science lessons from either of you!
Ciao,
Michael
Hi Michael, clearly you have no interest or use at all of any natural explanation for life being as it is, so I won't try. In your world there is no room for such a thing because you have already pre-concluded all the explanations you'll ever need: "God-Did-It".
A shame really since there are so many interesting and amazing things involved with having such a reliable natural working explanation for the world around us that you will never understand. A world just waiting for you to actually use the brain that you think God gave you.
Best way to avoid answering uncomfortable questions, I guess...Dear All,
Is this where the atheists all congregate. So be it. I would rather believe in my 'friend in the sky' than any of your beliefs. You will ALL be sorry that you don't believe in my same 'friend.' I can't believe the things that come out of your heads/mouths. You are all so blind, it's unbelievable. I'd rather talk with Christians who, at least, have some semblance of what life on earth is about. You atheists can all sit there and take potshots at me all you want. It won't change your fate one bit and I would hate to be you in a heartbeat.
I will not condemn you. I will leave that up to my 'friend in the sky' if it be the case. I can't believe you all exist and think the way you do, but whatever. I suppose there's a looney tune out there for every 10,000 believers, there is one non-believer. I really feel sorry for you ALL. Que lastima!
MichaelCadry
Some of us find your wilful ignorance hard to believe Michael, do you intend to spend eternity in a similar blissfully unaware state of mind?I will not condemn you. I will leave that up to my 'friend in the sky' if it be the case. I can't believe you all exist and think the way you do, but whatever. I suppose there's a looney tune out there for every 10,000 believers, there is one non-believer. I really feel sorry for you ALL. Que lastima!
MichaelCadry
I suppose there's a looney tune out there for every 10,000 believers, there is one non-believer.
Dear gcthomas,
You act like you are from some large majority of people. The Christians, Moslems, Jews and Catholics, among others, believe in God and some Jesus. You are one of the few left who don't believe in God. Don't hide amongst the wolves.
Baaah!!
MichaelC
Richard Dawkins vs. Wendy Wright | |
I think Dawkins holds his own here, where Wright keeps falling back on 'religious belief', 'moral implications' and 'intelligent design' to back the 'creationist' view. I think 'theistic evolution' would be the middle ground here.
pj
That video wouldn't play here for me so I found it on youtube. I thought Dawkins by far more than held his own, when he was allowed to get a word in. That woman doggedly, and painfully, refused to listen to reason.
'Theistic evolution' is made up of people honest enough to see the evidence for evolution (kudos for that), while having cherished, unmovable faith based theistic beliefs. So to avoid cognitive dissonance, they find a way to amalgamate the two. This is their right but hardly the middle ground IMO.
1) Evolution occurred - factual, based on masses of scientific evidence. Just the facts, just the evidence, nothing added.
2) God did it that way - religion based on faith but lacking scientific evidence.
Science is not just the middle but all the ground. Faith is an add on to the science, IMO.
I agree. Faith is not science. Faith is about hope and inspiration. Science on its own shows us the tools we have to work with. Faith gives us the drive to use the tools.
I agree. Faith is not science. Faith is about hope and inspiration. Science on its own shows us the tools we have to work with. Faith gives us the drive to use the tools.
Without saying that you necessarily see it this way, but there is a danger of just turning religion into feelings with this. I think religious belief needs to be based on a bit more than hope and inspiration (they are important, but they are not grounds for a belief in a proposition).
That being said, I agree that it is not science. Pure science is actually quite modest, it does not make any comment on metaphysics. However, that is an ideal that is very seldom met. Materialism and a purely mechanistic view of nature is very often being mixed in, as if it was a part of the science itself. Materialism is of course every bit as much of a metaphysics as any form of theism (or other forms of non-materialistic ontologies).
And the fact that theism is not based on scientific evidence does not entail that is merely based on faith (here understood as a form of blind belief in a proposition, which is a false understanding of faith as well, but that is another topic). One might be a theist at the same time as one accepts the science of evolution, because one thinks a theistic metaphysics is ultimately a more coherent view of reality, that is not a blind belief.