@Pikachu not sure it is better the point ... My point being believers say it's divinely inspired and the word of God... My point being it's so long after the event that is impossible to tell
Your assumption is of course wrong. You assume that your assumption written 2000 years later is more accurate than those who were eye witnesses. Some logic in that! You need to get your facts right. @ozgirl512
@Speedyman two things... Science is not based on assumptions... The closest you'll get to that is something called a theory... Something put forward but not yet proved...... Secondly, the writing of the Bible was NOT by eye witnesses, but by passed down stories many years after the event...
Yeah of course are totally wrong. The New Testament Gospels was actually based on eyewitnesses. You need to get your facts right. Science is based on the assumption that the universe is rational@ozgirl512
@ozgirl512 @SatanBurger Science is based on the assumption that the universe is rational and that whether you believe in God or not that it is rationally created
@Speedyman Science accompanies a wide range of subjects from space to medicine. If science was based on an assumption we'd have a lot of deaths due to medication because then they'd just be assuming.
@Speedyman Obviously since we have medication, hospitals, surgery that most likely won't kill you, surgery where you don't have to be awake when they cut into you, been to space, have tv, take off in planes etc. we have made progress.
[quote]Thanks to the fact people believe in a rational universe[/quote]
But more specifically thanks to the fact that modern medicine is an evidence based system. Which is the same reason evolution is embraced by the educated and thoughtful.
You are completely wrong headed. We are not talking about evolution we are talking about Darwinism. The problem is you don’t know what you’re talking about. You make these huge noises but you’ve got an empty head@Pikachu
Actually, i think we were talking about what makes the bible seem divine and then it became about science being based on assumptions and then about it being based on evidence and that both medicine and evolution are arrived at through evidence based investigation. Moving on.
In your mind, what is the difference between darwinism and modern evolution theory? Because i've noticed you keep talking about darwinism which refers to the theory of evolution as it was put forward by darwin and this is simply not the same model we use today.
Your problem is you confuse micro evolution and adaptation with the larger Darwin model. You take extrapolations as fact and that is not wide in science. Omens proved we shouldn’t with superconductivity but evolutionists still do. Very risky business. The problem is Darwin produced a model which people are desperately trying to fit awkward facts into and the facts do not fit@Pikachu
Oh dear you need to go back to college. Please go and get an education before you start writing things on the Internet would you know nothing about. You really are an most uneducated moron. You don’t seem to know the difference between anything which is not surprising if you don’t know what you’re talking about[. Carry on then just believing these idiotic things on the Internet which you read. You really need to understand things before you post. You obviously don’t. You are confusing adaptation within the species with the extrapolations of Darwinism. Some of us aren’t so gullible.
@Speedyman You shouldn't call people morons because you're projecting. I remember you telling me that darwin said there was no such thing as morality when that's not true. Obviously you've never read any books besides religious ones about Darwin but yet here you are talking about stuff you don't know.
I’m not insulting. Just telling you where you stand intellectually. I never of course said that Darwin said there is no such thing as morality. Just another thing you got wrong. Ho2 many more of your tiresome errors? @SatanBurger
@Speedyman [quote]I’m not insulting. Just telling you where you stand intellectually.[/quote]
Classic narcissism, can't own up to anything you do.
[quote]I never of course said that Darwin said there is no such thing as morality.[/quote]
Yeah I won't drag this on so this will be the last of that subject on an unrelated post but you did. You used a quote from Dawkins pertaining to Darwinism and said that he was saying there were "no morals under scientific atheism" when the quote wasn't saying that.
As mentioned Darwin made an argument that human morality evolved from social instincts of animals from sacrifices of social insects, the affection of female apes to their offspring and the loyalty of dogs and their masters. This leads to the fact that morals are innate as instinct where as the Christian says you have to have their form of god to be moral when studying animal behavior, that's obviously not true.
