by KateWild 532 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
re some of the logics of Belief in God via God's eye view external to time and views internal to time often described by those who believe in God, and in ancient myths etc
Viv's Law at work. That paper has nothing to do with belief in god and bears no resemblance to descriptions by people who believe in God and ancient myths.
re some of the logics of Belief in God via God's eye view external to time and views internal to time often described by those who believe in God, and in ancient myths etc rubyViv's Law at work. That paper has nothing to do with belief in god and bears no resemblance to descriptions by people who believe in God and ancient myths. viv
agreed that that that paper has nothing to do with belief in God but as to bearing no resemblance to descriptions by people who believe in God many scientists and biochemists (who don't believe in God) would disagree with you. Illya Prigogine for example states
"It is hard to avoid the impression that the distinction between what exists in time, what is irreversible, and, on the other hand, what is outside of time, what is eternal, is at the origin of human symbolic activity" p. 312. Order out of Chaos (Prigogine, Stengers 1984)
but as to bearing no resemblance to descriptions by people who believe in God many scientists and biochemists (who don't believe in God) would disagree with you. Illya Prigogine for example states
"It is hard to avoid the impression that the distinction between what exists in time, what is irreversible, and, on the other hand, what is outside of time, what is eternal, is at the origin of human symbolic activity" p. 312. Order out of Chaos (Prigogine, Stengers 1984)
What, specifically, in that paper, says anything about irreversability, being outside of time or something being eternal? (Hint: Nothing. Viv's Law strikes again.)
Kate Wilde started this O.P " I Conclude evolution is guided" ? and Vivianbe started an O.P " What is Spirit"? As for myself I started an O.P " Did Man Land on the Moon" ?
Talk about starting questions without answers.....Oh for Gos sake ( One poster is athiest, another agnostic, another a scientist ect) shut up...this O.P may as well be talking about " identifying three discrepancies in Einsteins special theory of Relativity, with special reference to the constant 3x/c.
Sorry may be I am out of order, and I don't consider myself a smart thinker, but I think having read the thread up till page three I concluded evolution is not guided. So why do those that explained factually " evolution is not guided" not leave it on page three?
Faith, by definition, means believing things in the absence of evidence. Once people decide to abandon reason, they can believe virtually anything - with severe consequences!
i give up - lol
yeah yeah "i clearly don't understand" I got it I'm stupid for wanting to know the source of it all so that I can make an educated decision.
Personally I think it IS stupid for example to pull a quarter-sized piece of scrap metal out of a pile and then claim everyone else is stupid because they don't clearly see that this metal with not a mark on it is from a Solstice GXP Coupe Turbo.
Seriously it's insane.
I'll be first to admit there's a ton of evidence to support the theory of evolution but that doesn't automatically mean all the answers have been explained. This very origin issue perplexed Darwin which is seen by his many comments on the matter to his colleges in letters. If it was good enough to bug Chuck it's good enough for me.
Until we solve this issue it is not possible to make any absolute statement. I don't see where it is a crime to want more proof. To know what the biochemical charge was (yes cofty scientists absolutely use this term) is important.
If your aim is to force people to accept your opinion and you say oh don't worry about how ti all started just believe what I say the result came from, at least with this guy, you're wasting your time.
I want the f-ing proof period.
No, you are not stupid for wanting the f-ing proof
Your ignorance comes from ignoring all the things that people have said about the work being done in the field of abiogenesis
Your ignorance does not arise from wanting the proof...it arises from your refusal to engage in the process of examining the 'proof'
@OrphanCrow said several times I'm all ears on how the origin of life started. Happy to listen to anything anyone has to say. But alas no one has said much, just that I'm stupid.
so here's your chance enlighten me. What proof do you have that supports an evolutionary happenstance that is the origin of life? Go
But alas no one has said much
?????????
just that I'm stupid
yeah...they probably came to that conclusion based on the evidence you have given about your lack of ability to engage with those who have said a LOT about the subject at hand
