I'm having difficulty with that sentence
I'll get back to you when I've fathomed your meaning fully 
The Theory of Everything
- Thread starter Hysteresis
- Start date
I'll get back to you when I've fathomed your meaning fully Sponsored Links
I'm having difficulty with that sentence
lol. what I mean is, you appear to be agreeing with me on the point that just because one doesn't understand the explanation doesn't make it any less true...... yet that contradicts the point you made before when you seem to support (by giving validity to) your creationist friend's argument against evolution because the fossil records haven't convinced him personally.
Hope that's a bit more sensible lol.
Thanks
I was only agreeing with his view in as much as there doesn't seem to be much physical evidence exemplifying minute changes. But as I've stated elsewhere, it may well be due to the fact that only a tiny number of people have been looking for these needles in a haystack for a very short time.
As for me contradicting myself - like I said, there are truths that contradict each other, even universal ones
- Joined
- 18 Feb 2007
- Messages
- 1,367
- Reaction score
- 77
- Country
Put you Dummy back in again Norcon.So when you don't have any answers you attack the Bible.
Typical.
You attack Science but can't take criticism of you beliefs.
To use my prophet Stephen Hawking's words, you Cherry Pick what you want and ignore the rest.
You either accept it all 'Warts and All', or you reject it all, there is no half way house in which you Cherry Pick the bits you like.
The Bible is full of anomalies and Barbaric recommendations, this must worry you even just a little.
The bad developments in Science worries me but I accept that there are good things in Science, like alleviating mankind of suffering, But science is responsible for the good and the bad.
You should accept your Bibles' horrific bits and address them, but don't just Cherry Pick what appears to be the Good Bits.
The balance of evidence is heavily in favour of the Scientific explanation, but I will happily accept I am wrong if religious beliefs are repeatably demonstrated as being true. Unfortunately it does not withstand rigorous analysis or even simple analysis and relies totally on ancient writings full of anomalies and changed hundreds of times through translation and mis-translation.
I have to accept the evidence as presented to me, if your God at the Pearly Gates denounces me for that then that is unfair as he/she/it has not presented me with the evidence for me to make an educated decision as to what to believe, so he /she/it is responsible for his/her/it's shortcomings.
Blind Faith is not an option for me.
Sponsored Links
Ignoring your other points for the time being and dealing with this one, why shouldn't one select the good bits? I kind of thought that that is what ol' JC was trying to do, and that was his main message.
But surely you're contradicting yourself in that you have blind faith in science being able to explain everything that can be explained?
Ignoring your other points for the time being and dealing with this one, why shouldn't one select the good bits? I kind of thought that that is what ol' JC was trying to do, and that was his main message.
Its not obligatory to accept the bad bits as hysterious seems to think.
As you know, I'm hopeful of there being a god but am very sceptical about any man made religion. The bible may have elements of some truth in it, but it seems highly unlikely to all be accurate and therefore the only sensible thing to do is to select the bits which do little or preferably no harm to anyone else and which are likely to make one's own life as peaceful as possible.Ignoring your other points for the time being and dealing with this one, why shouldn't one select the good bits? I kind of thought that that is what ol' JC was trying to do, and that was his main message.
Its not obligatory to accept the bad bits as hysterious seems to think.
I suspect that there are common elements in all religious texts, and if we could precis the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of pages down to these short few, then the vast majority of threads on this GD forum would be obsolete.- Joined
- 18 Feb 2007
- Messages
- 1,367
- Reaction score
- 77
- Country
"The balance of evidence is heavily in favour of the Scientific explanation,"
So what created the universe then?
It just created itself from nothing?
Like magic?
You must have blind faith when you believe that.
I did say Heavily in favour of Science. And like Dexterous, I sincerely hope I am wrong
I am afraid you fall into the same trap you accuse me of.
I have no idea as to what created the universe just as you have no idea as to what created God. Any answer you give to that question can apply to both Creationism and Science. Magic - Well maybe the answer for us both
All I have said that Science has more credibility that creationism in my opinion
- Joined
- 18 Feb 2007
- Messages
- 1,367
- Reaction score
- 77
- Country
Ignoring your other points for the time being and dealing with this one, why shouldn't one select the good bits? I kind of thought that that is what ol' JC was trying to do, and that was his main message.
Because it is a belief. If you select what you believe 'cos it sounds nice is is not a belief, it is convenience. You have to accept it all good and bad.
I do with science, it's just a pity the God Botherers don't.
- Joined
- 18 Feb 2007
- Messages
- 1,367
- Reaction score
- 77
- Country
Ignoring your other points for the time being and dealing with this one, why shouldn't one select the good bits? I kind of thought that that is what ol' JC was trying to do, and that was his main message.
Its not obligatory to accept the bad bits as hysterious seems to think.
It is Obligatory.
You cannot Cherry Pick. If you disregard the bad bits then why should the good bit be true, just because it suits your ideas of your God.
Cherry picking from the work of another man is reasonable and sensible. Doing it from the bible would be an affront to god himself, as the whole lot is supposedly his word. Who are we to decide he was talking crap on certain days?
It's my supposition that the fact that we 'can' cherry pick and disregard stuff that we know better about suggests those bits were baloney. This brings the credibility of the whole lot into question!
It's my supposition that the fact that we 'can' cherry pick and disregard stuff that we know better about suggests those bits were baloney. This brings the credibility of the whole lot into question!
Ignoring your other points for the time being and dealing with this one, why shouldn't one select the good bits? I kind of thought that that is what ol' JC was trying to do, and that was his main message.
Its not obligatory to accept the bad bits as hysterious seems to think.
It is Obligatory.
You cannot Cherry Pick. If you disregard the bad bits then why should the good bit be true, just because it suits your ideas of your God.
Its NOT obligatory. You are talking rubbish as usual.
Though its probably more to do with your insatiable appetite to malign the Bible because I posted a few home truths about your beloved war mongering physics which you have no answer for other than Bible bashing.
That's like saying man never makes mistakes and because he does he shouldn't be forgiven for it.
So just burn the entire Bible.
Sponsored Links
