Maksutov wrote:I'm sorry, Quasi, but your detailed and well substantiated research has been rejected in favor of "stories" in the form of a bundle of texts which did not grasp the concepts of the cell, circulation of the blood, the existence of the nervous system, DNA, viruses, bacteria, etc. but did include demons, witches, talking snakes and angels. You just didn't have enough evidence.
His links provided no evidence of the theory. There are zero links between behavior and the structure of DNA. None, zero, nada. The theory states that DNA was changed over time and the changes allowed natural selection to form the human DNA code. Great theory but where is the evidence? Where is the code for being self aware? Then show me the step by step path that evolution took to make a human from the missing link.
Missing link, ha ha ha ha ha. More like missing every step from here to the missing link.
Your science is just like quoting scripture. No proof. Just a good story that you believe.
Maksutov wrote:Where did I say what, Frank? Show me.
So you are telling me that you believe in science but have no proof that science is correct in their theories? Are you telling me that you accept the word of others and don't care if there is proof or not? Are you telling me that you take it on faith that the theories of science are true?
So are you telling me that science is faith based? Is science based on proof or is it based on a belief system? I assumed you thought science was evidence based. Maybe I was wrong.
Maksutov wrote:Where did I say what, Frank? Show me.
So you are telling me that you believe in science but have no proof that science is correct in their theories? Are you telling me that you accept the word of others and don't care if there is proof or not? Are you telling me that you take it on faith that the theories of science are true?
So are you telling me that science is faith based? Is science based on proof or is it based on a belief system? I assumed you thought science was evidence based. Maybe I was wrong.
I don't use the word "proof" and I don't have a "belief system". Those are paradigms from theologians. They don't fit anything but their own little theological universes.
I'm not telling you any of the things that you're asking. I don't think of those things in those terms. It's incongruous with my experience and that of the authorities that I respect.
You continue to sidestep the fact that there are large numbers of religious people who are perfectly able to function with the scientific method. They are teachers, doctors, scientists, even priests and ministers. They are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and others. Just because your particular religious view precludes western science does not mean that it is anything but your own idiosyncratic example. Frankly, Frank, this looks like it's more about your pride than anything. You're too proud to learn. Pride in ignorance is not an admirable quality. I wish you would reconsider.
Maksutov wrote: I'm not telling you any of the things that you're asking. I don't think of those things in those terms. It's incongruous with my experience and that of the authorities that I respect.
How are you any different than any Catholic who respects the authority of the Pope?
Maksutov wrote: I'm not telling you any of the things that you're asking. I don't think of those things in those terms. It's incongruous with my experience and that of the authorities that I respect.
How are you any different than any Catholic who respects the authority of the Pope?
Because I'm not a Catholic and everything isn't about religion.
I'm sorry, Quasi, but your detailed and well substantiated research has been rejected in favor of "stories" in the form of a bundle of texts which did not grasp the concepts of the cell, circulation of the blood, the existence of the nervous system, DNA, viruses, bacteria, etc. but did include demons, witches, talking snakes and angels. You just didn't have enough evidence.
Yeah, I was expecting that. "None are so blind as those who will not see."
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
LittleNipper wrote:And everyone totally realizes that Wikipedia is the end all for "fact" ---- or is it just regurgitating what is presently societies accepted rationalizations? The strata was created and looked however ancient to the unenlightened observer. Then during the Flood and soon after the strata buckled, fractured, slid, was ultimately forced upward over itself forming mountain ranges. What had been underwater ended up upon mountain peaks. At the same time this caused heat which stirred up volcanic eruptions. During all this there were meteor/asteroid strikes. RAIN from heaven and geysers (fountains of the deep) shooting upward. Whether there was once an ice canopy surrounding this planet which ultimately collapsed is anyone's guess; however, with GOD all things are possible.
So Nipper, after posting how many pages of the Bible, you're going to condemn someone else for "regurgitation"?
With God all things are possible, except that they aren't. God doesn't heal amputees does he?
Ice canopy? Who said that, Henry Morris? That isn't science, Nipper. Neither is the "fountains of the deep" nonsense. Nor the global flood. Nor the two by two cartoon of Noah.
I believe Jesus may have healed amputees. Today, however, God has given a spark of ingenuity to man to be able to create apparatus that works like the missing limb. An ice canopy is just a THEORY. The mechanics of how or why such a canopy may have worked is scientific thought. The theory that all the species of the planet are the end result of one is nonsense. And that for life to form on it own takes millions of years is an atheist's dream. Life never originates on it's own and spontaneous generation of any sort is hogwash but also scientific thought.
I'm encouraging others to read the Bible ---many likely for the very first time. In paraphrasing the Bible, even I have come to a greater awareness of what the Bible says and how it says it. In fact, the Bible I have found is very humorous in spots. But then if you don't read and study it, you will never know.
