dtp883 wrote:Sobekhotep, If you don't mind me asking, are you really a Hindu?
dtp883 wrote:I always though you were white.
dtp883 wrote:That probably sounds incredibly racist but I've never met a white Hindu before
linguoboy wrote:formiko wrote:I thought the younger generation was more open-minded!
So how open are the authors of that book to the possibility that there was no Adam and Eve, no Great Flood, and no Christ?
Talib wrote:Actually, I've heard all about Evidence That Demands a Verdict. I'm probably about as interested in reading it as you are in reading The God Delusion.
Two problems:formiko wrote:Actually, it's a scholarly book, and he was a devout atheist/evolutionist. He explains the problems he had with evolution initially in the introduction. The author of answersingenesis.org was an atheist/evolutionist. He's a biologist. He also runs the Creationist Museum in Ohio I believe.
Talib wrote:1) You're equating atheism and evolution. One is a metaphysical belief; the other is a scientific theory.
Talib wrote:And just for fun, 3) "he runs the Creationist Museum in Ohio." If that doesn't scream hidden agenda, I don't know what does.
Out of curiosity, which one?linguoboy wrote:As a result, there's no incompatibility between religious faith and acceptance of evolution. I haven't always been an atheist, but I've always been an evolutionist. It's just that I had the good fortune to be raised in a religion (and a Christian one at that) which distinguishes metaphysical truth from scientific truth.
It appears to have several: http://www.facebook.com/search/?init=sr ... ism+museumThat's not exactly a hidden agenda, is it? That's a big honkin' in-your-face agenda. If it were any less hidden, it would have it's own Facebook page.
Why not? All lived in the same environmental conditions. Besides, take into account that all life is relatedYaziq wrote:The problem with evolutionary theory is that it omits any discussion of the odds of any changes which have allegedly occurred. Could nature have "invented" endothermy in mammals, birds and dinosaurs? That's endothermy developing three times. What are the odds?
Again, why not? Four billion years is a long time. I don't know much about abiogenesis but once life starts to develop, it's not beyond the realm of the imagination at all that incremental changes over time would produce the vast multitudes of life forms we know today (which is of course exactly what we believe happened).Another problem is that if you consider viruses to be a form of life you are saying that life began by chance more than once. Surely you don't believe that animals, plants and viruses have the same point of origin.
Talib wrote:I was raised Catholic (!) and never had any reason to question the scientific consensus when it jarred with the literalist interpretation of the Bible.
Yaziq wrote:Could nature have "invented" endothermy in mammals, birds and dinosaurs? That's endothermy developing three times.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests