betsy Posted January 12, 2018 Author Report Posted January 12, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, ?Impact said: I can say with 100% certainty that Donald Trump views Mike Pence as lesser a man than the President. He is expected to stand in the background and nod thoughtfully at every piece of garbage coming out of the Presidents mouth. I would say the submission role in the Bible is interpreted the same by many. We're not talking about Trump, or anyone else in particular. I wonder how many billionaires secretly view everyone who isn't, a lesser man? But since you made Trump as an example, I don't think you can claim with "100% certainty" that Trump views Pence as lesser a man. The reasons you cited are part of protocol. There is a protocol to follow - just like they do with royalty. Of course, the second-in-command will have to stand behind the leader. Not only is it protocol, but there's also symbolism in it: as a sign of unity, the Vice President stands behind the President (as in, I stand behind your decision). It's not only with Pence and Trump. As for the nodding head - that has something to do with optics. I don't know the exact term for it but it has to do with psychology that's aimed at the viewers. Check out the people standing behind Trudeau when he makes a speech - there'll be some who'll be nodding. That's part of the game. They're trying to influence voters. Guess what's #1 on the list. The Nod. Quote 10 Psychology Tricks You Can Use To Influence People https://listverse.com/2013/02/03/10-psychology-tricks-you-can-use-to-influence-people/ Quote Head Nod Head Gestures - Part 2 http://www.study-body-language.com/head-nod.html#sthash.MVUzhPSv.dpbs Edited January 12, 2018 by betsy Quote
blackbird Posted January 13, 2018 Report Posted January 13, 2018 (edited) The heading for this thread is The Evidence for God. The best website I have seen which makes the case for the existence of God is: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html There is a page that reviews some of the most famous scientists who believed in God. There are many other pages and links to various related topics. One of them discusses the gap theory. This is the modern atheist theory that there is a gap in science which when gradually filled will allegedly show why the atheists are correct. This is another good article. Some scientists today do believe in God. Many are vehemently opposed. These various articles deal with a lot of that. One interesting scientist who is mentioned is: Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627) Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism) Edited January 13, 2018 by blackbird Quote
Antares Posted January 15, 2018 Report Posted January 15, 2018 On 11/01/2018 at 1:17 AM, blackbird said: I wouldn't put the Bible alongside the theory of evolution. Evolution is only a theory On 11/01/2018 at 1:20 AM, ?Impact said: I would put an evidence supported theory above a collection of children's fairy tales. I'm aware that people commonly refer to the 'theory' of evolution, but I don't know why. It's not a theory: it's an inevitable conclusion drawn from certain clearly observed facts about the natural world. Many things reproduce by producing near-copies of themselves which are not perfect, and which compete for resources in order to survive. That's about it. You only need to add certain non-controversial observations on the nature of the natural world, and it follows with certainty that there will be species that evolve, however the world might have come into being. Quote
?Impact Posted January 15, 2018 Report Posted January 15, 2018 6 hours ago, Antares said: It's not a theory: it's an inevitable conclusion drawn from certain clearly observed facts about the natural world. That is the essential definition of a theory. You are confusing the term theory with the term hypothesis. One can think of a theory as a reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of knowledge supported by empirical evidence. Quote
OftenWrong Posted January 15, 2018 Report Posted January 15, 2018 14 minutes ago, ?Impact said: That is the essential definition of a theory. You are confusing the term theory with the term hypothesis. One can think of a theory as a reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of knowledge supported by empirical evidence. Right, the poster does not understand the scientific terms Theory and Proof. Quote
blackbird Posted January 15, 2018 Report Posted January 15, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, Antares said: I'm aware that people commonly refer to the 'theory' of evolution, but I don't know why. It's not a theory: it's an inevitable conclusion drawn from certain clearly observed facts about the natural world. Many things reproduce by producing near-copies of themselves which are not perfect, and which compete for resources in order to survive. That's about it. You only need to add certain non-controversial observations on the nature of the natural world, and it follows with certainty that there will be species that evolve, however the world might have come into being. I don't believe in the claims of evolution. As far as I know, it has never been proven and is impossible to prove. Many creation scientists have examined it and dismissed the claims of evolution for different reasons. Professor Philip Stott has shown with the mathematical theory of probability that evolution is impossible. He said there is not enough time for creation to occur by random chance processes. Some good articles on creation.org Edited January 15, 2018 by blackbird Quote
?Impact Posted January 15, 2018 Report Posted January 15, 2018 13 minutes ago, blackbird said: Many creation scientists have examined it Now that is an oxymoron Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 15, 2018 Report Posted January 15, 2018 6 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Now that is an oxymoron I don't understand why religious types want to dominate the world of science too. It feel like insecurity. It's not like they're champeen wrestlers trying to unite the titles of 'World Science Champ' and 'World God Champ'. There are no BELTS awarded here. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
blackbird Posted January 16, 2018 Report Posted January 16, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: I don't understand why religious types want to dominate the world of science too. It feel like insecurity. It's not like they're champeen wrestlers trying to unite the titles of 'World Science Champ' and 'World God Champ'. There are no BELTS awarded here. Don't think they want to dominate science. Atheists often ridicule christianity by pointing to science saying blah blah blah. So there are some Bible-believing scientists who wish to set the record straight about some things like evolution that many have fallen down to worship as absolute fact. Evolution has not been proven and creation scientists find it interesting to investigate the subject and point out where some widely accepted theories are flawed. It is impossible to prove something which it is claimed happened over a long period of time because that time is gone and we cannot re-create it in a laboratory. Here is an interesting article on the age of the earth. https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Edited January 16, 2018 by blackbird Quote
blackbird Posted January 16, 2018 Report Posted January 16, 2018 9 hours ago, OftenWrong said: Right, the poster does not understand the scientific terms Theory and Proof. The difference between a theory and a fact is quite simple. A fact can be proven by what scientists call the scientific method. A theory is simply speculation that has not been proven by the scientific method. 1 Quote
?Impact Posted January 16, 2018 Report Posted January 16, 2018 (edited) 18 minutes ago, blackbird said: The difference between a theory and a fact is quite simple. A fact can be proven by what scientists call the scientific method. A theory is simply speculation that has not been proven by the scientific method. Wrong, simply wrong. Edited January 16, 2018 by ?Impact Quote
OftenWrong Posted January 16, 2018 Report Posted January 16, 2018 7 minutes ago, blackbird said: The difference between a theory and a fact is quite simple. A fact can be proven by what scientists call the scientific method. A theory is simply speculation that has not been proven by the scientific method. I'm afraid you are wrong, friend. You are describing what those words mean in terms of ordinary language. I said scientific terms. Many folk confuse "theory" with "hypothesis". The poster ?Impact described them well enough. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 16, 2018 Report Posted January 16, 2018 7 hours ago, blackbird said: Don't think they want to dominate science. Atheists often ridicule christianity by pointing to science saying blah blah blah. So there are some Bible-believing scientists who wish to set the record straight about some things like evolution that many have fallen down to worship as absolute fact. Evolution has not been proven and creation scientists find it interesting to investigate the subject and point out where some widely accepted theories are flawed. I'm sure you can find flaws in it, but no real scientist is going to believe origin stories that came from an ancient holy book. 'Believing' the bible does not have to mean fundamentalism, ie. accepting all the analogies, myths and contradictions contained therein. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
betsy Posted January 16, 2018 Author Report Posted January 16, 2018 (edited) 23 hours ago, Antares said: I'm aware that people commonly refer to the 'theory' of evolution, but I don't know why. It's not a theory: it's an inevitable conclusion drawn from certain clearly observed facts about the natural world. Evolution does happens.....but not macroevolution. What so-called "facts?" There are no evidence for macroevolution! Quote Many things reproduce by producing near-copies of themselves which are not perfect, and which compete for resources in order to survive. No one denies ADAPTATION. There is evolution within species. Ut's called "MICROevolution. Quote Adaptation:The adjustment or changes in behavior, physiology, and structure of an organism to become more suited to an environment. According to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, organisms that possess heritable traits that enable them to better adapt to their environment compared with other members of their species will be more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass more of their genes on to the next generation. http://www.nas.edu/evolution/Definitions.html Edited January 16, 2018 by betsy Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 16, 2018 Report Posted January 16, 2018 What evolutionists need to recognize is that their ideas are not being picked up by mainstream science. That is not because of some conspiracy but rather because their ideas are bad. As such, if you continue to push old ideas that have been disproven and have died on the table of intellectual pursuit you look like someone who doesn't acknowledge facts. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
?Impact Posted January 16, 2018 Report Posted January 16, 2018 2 hours ago, betsy said: Evolution does happens.....but not macroevolution. Sure thing, did you read that on a box of Bible crunchies. Quote
betsy Posted January 16, 2018 Author Report Posted January 16, 2018 19 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Sure thing, did you read that on a box of Bible crunchies. I suppose you didn't see that link I gave above. Quote
?Impact Posted January 16, 2018 Report Posted January 16, 2018 27 minutes ago, betsy said: I suppose you didn't see that link I gave above. James Tour is actually a very good scientist, although he is also a man of faith. Instead of reading propaganda from the intelligent design nitwits, I suggest you read what James actually says on the subject: https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/ Quote
betsy Posted January 16, 2018 Author Report Posted January 16, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, ?Impact said: James Tour is actually a very good scientist, although he is also a man of faith. Instead of reading propaganda from the intelligent design nitwits, I suggest you read what James actually says on the subject: https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/ He's not a proponent of Intelligent Design. But he is among some scientists who signed a petition against macroevolution. James Tour, had penned an open letter to his colleagues. I'll be posting it in the other thread - his thread. Edited January 16, 2018 by betsy Quote
?Impact Posted January 16, 2018 Report Posted January 16, 2018 14 minutes ago, betsy said: He's not a proponent of Intelligent Design. But he is among some scientists who signed a petition against macroevolution. Wrong, go read his words and stop putting yours forward. He is not against macroevolution, that is not what he said. Quote
betsy Posted January 16, 2018 Author Report Posted January 16, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Wrong, go read his words and stop putting yours forward. He is not against macroevolution, that is not what he said. Wrong choice of word - he doesn't understand it. NO ONE UNDERSTAND IT! He's against the way macroevolution is being peddled and passed off as a fact! He said, it's all extrapolations! He's been rattling cages, and seems to want someone to try and counter his claim(s). No one has, so far. He's very aggressive - and he has the credibility, especially when there's no one refuting his claims! Edited January 16, 2018 by betsy Quote
?Impact Posted January 16, 2018 Report Posted January 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, betsy said: Wrong choice of word Exactly, now you know why the Intelligent Design community has zero credibility, they twist words to further their agenda. Quote
betsy Posted January 16, 2018 Author Report Posted January 16, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Exactly, now you know why the Intelligent Design community has zero credibility, they twist words to further their agenda. Why do you insist that he's with Intelligent Design???? Did you read the article you've just quoted? Did you see the first two sentences? Here: I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (sometimes called “ID”) proponent. I am not. And, no I take it back - I wasn't wrong in choosing that term. My mistake was not being very clear about it. He is AGAINST the way macroevolution is being peddled as a fact! Edited January 16, 2018 by betsy Quote
?Impact Posted January 16, 2018 Report Posted January 16, 2018 Just now, betsy said: Why do you insist that he's with Intelligent Design???? I don't, I am pointing out the the Intelligent Design community have twisted his words. Quote
betsy Posted January 16, 2018 Author Report Posted January 16, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, ?Impact said: I don't, I am pointing out the the Intelligent Design community have twisted his words. ID twisted his words? What on earth are you on about? They took the quote from his own site! We're not talking ID. Here - his last update was recently! https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/ Look at his open letter to his colleagues, too - are you in denial? Edited January 16, 2018 by betsy Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.