>On Nov 6, 9:58 pm, SortingItOut <eri...@home.com> wrote:
>[snip to a few specific points]
>> It's far, far more demoralizing to me that people are unkind to >> each other than it is that we're the product of evolution.
>How we treat others seems to be the central theme of Jesus' ministry. >So kudos to you for sorting that one out.
>> But then there's the other emotional problem of deciding along the way >> that God apparently isn't really there, and then thinking later that I >> might be wrong about that. It may be just as hard to go back as it >> was to leave.
>I can understand this. Without tangible evidence for God it is >difficult to believe He even exists at times. Back then God seemed to >be more active in the world via true prophets and other supernatural >events. But today he seems almost nonexistent to those without keen >perception. For what it is worth. I did "go back". It was not as >difficult as I thought.
>What I discovered was, religion is what I was most unhappy with but, I >was not unhappy with the existence of God or what God stood for. >Religion was not offering answers. The answers are there. However, >organized religions are just not teaching the answers. Jesus addressed >this even in his day..
>OTOH science offers answers but the answers are untrustworthy because >mankind is untrustworthy. Mankind has inherent flaws therefore >mankind's science will have flaws.
>BTW, thanks for your replies.
Science is much more trustworthy than your claims. Why do you worship yourself, your interpretations of the Bible, your claims about God, when you tell us that mankind ahs inherent flaws? Why do you implicitly deny that you are the one with the flawed understanding?
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:12:22 -0500, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:40:40 -0700, Desertphile > <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote in > <c0k9f5dov7q0eph0jnnptmdpkaggdv5...@4ax.com> :
> >On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 13:57:43 -0800 (PST), Christopher Denney > ><christopher.den...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 6, 7:35 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> >>> 1) Not using science. What compels you to believe the ToE?
> >> Not using the bible, what compels you to believe in god?
> >A very high feaver? > Did it do that with you?
No; I started to believe in doctors, however. And pharmachology. They're the same things as gods, only they actually save people.
-- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
On Nov 6, 7:45 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 07:35:14 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I > <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
> >1) Not using science. What compels you to believe the ToE?
> You lied here. Evolution is a discovery of science and you know it.
You are mistaken. Creationists do not believe or accept what is false (evolution) to be science. Evolution is Scientism----which is an explanation of scientific data that presupposes nature to have produced itself. Scientism is a religion (Smith 2000; Scott 2001). Its deity: the deranged ideas of its proponents.
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 13:15:41 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in <ca53b708-158f-414d-a52c-97667c256...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com> :
>On Nov 6, 7:45 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 07:35:14 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I >> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>> >1) Not using science. What compels you to believe the ToE?
>> You lied here. Evolution is a discovery of science and you know it.
>You are mistaken. Creationists do not believe or accept what is false >(evolution) to be science.
Just because you don't like an idea doesn't mean that it's false.
>Evolution is Scientism----which is an >explanation of scientific data that presupposes nature to have >produced itself.
No one claims that nature produced itself.
>Scientism is a religion (Smith 2000; Scott 2001).
Full citations please.
>Its >deity: the deranged ideas of its proponents.
Next you'll be claiming that a round Earth is a deranged idea.
On Nov 7, 3:15 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 7:45 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 07:35:14 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I > > <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
> > >1) Not using science. What compels you to believe the ToE?
> > You lied here. Evolution is a discovery of science and you know it.
> You are mistaken. Creationists do not believe or accept what is false > (evolution) to be science.
hat must explain why many do accept the ToE as valid science.
> Evolution is Scientism----which is an > explanation of scientific data that presupposes nature to have > produced itself. Scientism is a religion (Smith 2000; Scott 2001). Its > deity: the deranged ideas of its proponents.
Good thing that does not apply to actual acience, like the ToE.
On Nov 7, 4:15 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 7:45 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 07:35:14 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I > > <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
> > >1) Not using science. What compels you to believe the ToE?
> > You lied here. Evolution is a discovery of science and you know it.
> You are mistaken. Creationists do not believe or accept what is false > (evolution) to be science. Evolution is Scientism----which is an > explanation of scientific data that presupposes nature to have > produced itself. Scientism is a religion (Smith 2000; Scott 2001). Its > deity: the deranged ideas of its proponents.
evolution is not an explanation of nature. it's an explanation of the development of life
big difference. ray doesn't even know this simple fact, yet he's an expert on science
> On Nov 6, 7:45 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 07:35:14 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I > > <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
> > >1) Not using science. What compels you to believe the ToE?
> > You lied here. Evolution is a discovery of science and you know it.
> You are mistaken. Creationists do not believe or accept what is false > (evolution) to be science. Evolution is Scientism----which is an > explanation of scientific data that presupposes nature to have > produced itself. Scientism is a religion (Smith 2000; Scott 2001). Its > deity: the deranged ideas of its proponents.
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 13:15:41 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Nov 6, 7:45 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 07:35:14 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I >> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>> >1) Not using science. What compels you to believe the ToE?
>> You lied here. Evolution is a discovery of science and you know it.
>You are mistaken. Creationists do not believe or accept what is false
But you are lying when you claim that evolution is false and you are lying when you deny that it was discovered through science.
>(evolution) to be science. Evolution is Scientism----which is an >explanation of scientific data that presupposes nature to have >produced itself. Scientism is a religion (Smith 2000; Scott 2001). Its >deity: the deranged ideas of its proponents.
You teach what makes you feel good, not what is real.
>On Nov 7, 3:15 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Nov 6, 7:45 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 07:35:14 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I >> > <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>> > >1) Not using science. What compels you to believe the ToE?
>> > You lied here. Evolution is a discovery of science and you know it.
>> You are mistaken. Creationists do not believe or accept what is false >> (evolution) to be science. Evolution is Scientism----which is an >> explanation of scientific data that presupposes nature to have >> produced itself. Scientism is a religion (Smith 2000; Scott 2001). Its >> deity: the deranged ideas of its proponents.
>> Ray
>> SNIP....
>Well said.
Another miscreant hiding his lies behind the Bible.
>On Nov 7, 3:15 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Nov 6, 7:45 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 07:35:14 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I >> > <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>> > >1) Not using science. What compels you to believe the ToE?
>> > You lied here. Evolution is a discovery of science and you know it.
>> You are mistaken. Creationists do not believe or accept what is false >> (evolution) to be science. Evolution is Scientism----which is an >> explanation of scientific data that presupposes nature to have >> produced itself. Scientism is a religion (Smith 2000; Scott 2001). Its >> deity: the deranged ideas of its proponents.
>> Ray
>> SNIP....
>Well said.
You realize that Ray says that even micro-evolution is false? Is micro-evolution "Scientism"? Is micro-evolution a religion?
All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in news:4ce33752-1a11-42d5-bb91- 2d7d87f00...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> 1) Not using science. What compels you to believe the ToE?
Only science compels me to think the ToE is correct. There is no other reason to accept or reject a scientific theory, in my opinion.
> 2) Please give an opinion (not a scientific definition) for why you > think one species can give rise to one or more other species that are > clearly no longer like the original.
Given the way mitosis and meiosis occur, it seems like a logical conclusion. Furthermore, it has been observed to occur.
> 3a) If God worked a genuine miracle in your life (and there could be > no other reasonable explanation other then He did), would you tell > others about it?
There are always other reasonable explanations for miracles. I would therefore be pretty circumspect about telling others if I thought God had worked a miracle in my life.
> 3b) If no one believe this miracle took place, how would you try to > convince them?
Certainly not. That would be a futile endeavor.
> 4a) Were you ever religious at one time?
Yes.
> 4b) What caused you to become nonreligious.
I never became nonreligious. I remain religious today.
> 5) Does the ToE bring you any personal comfort knowing that you are > simply the result of unguided processes and a freak coincidence that > caused spontaneous life?
This is a leading question. I accept the ToE as an explanation of life on Earth, but do not consider "unguided processes and a freak coincidence" an apt description of the ToE.
> 6) Do you reserve any other explainations that may be posible for > man's origins and for the current state of the earth?
I'm not sure what you mean here. There are many processes unrelated to biology responsible for the current state of the earth.
> 7) If you are a real scientist, could you ever believe there is a God > knowing what you believe is fact?
Certainly. I do. Though I'm an engineer, not a scientist.
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 13:15:41 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 6, 7:45 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 07:35:14 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I >> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>> >1) Not using science. What compels you to believe the ToE?
>> You lied here. Evolution is a discovery of science and you know it.
>You are mistaken. Creationists do not believe or accept what is false >(evolution) to be science. Evolution is Scientism----which is an >explanation of scientific data that presupposes nature to have >produced itself. Scientism is a religion (Smith 2000; Scott 2001).
Please provide proper cites for those references.
>Its >deity: the deranged ideas of its proponents.
All-Seeing-I wrote: > 1) Not using science. What compels you to believe the ToE?
I'm not sure what you mean by "not using science". I think the evidence and the logic of the explanatory framework that comprises the ToE are convincing. I think the word "impels" would work better than "compels".
> 2) Please give an opinion (not a scientific definition) for why you > think one species can give rise to one or more other species that are > clearly no longer like the original.
Since we're speaking informally here, I'd say (a) that reproduction is inexact (b) that small differences can accumulate over time (c) to result in large differences, in some cases, after a while.
> 3a) If God worked a genuine miracle in your life (and there could be > no other reasonable explanation other then He did), would you tell > others about it?
Again, I'm not sure what would be "a genuine miracle", but I'd likely share the experience at least with close family and friends.
> 3b) If no one believe this miracle took place, how would you try to > convince them?
I'd find my own experience to be sufficient and would not feel any need to try to convince anyone of anything.
> 4a) Were you ever religious at one time?
yes.
> 4b) What caused you to become nonreligious.
I have not become nonreligious.
> 5) Does the ToE bring you any personal comfort knowing that you are > simply the result of unguided processes and a freak coincidence that > caused spontaneous life?
I don't know about "personal comfort" ... I don't think scientific theories are intended to deliver "personal comfort". I do have some feelings of transcendence, of belongingness or connectedness to the universe -- to me a form of religious feeling -- considering the atoms comprising my self were formed in stellar novae, considering these atoms form together to make what we call life, considering I share the same underpinning basis of life as other creatures of our planet, who are thereby my kin. I think it's pretty cool that I'm a part of all that. I often have feelings of awe and wonder and beauty considering scientific theories such as evolution or quantum mechanics or relativity or others. I don't consider my feelings about these theories to be part of the theories or to need any explaination outside of human psychology.
> 6) Do you reserve any other explainations that may be posible for > man's origins and for the current state of the earth?
Again, talking very informally: I'm perfectly willing to accept other explainations than the ToE, should they come along, but I'm sure any other explainations would be as nature-based and robust as the ToE.
> 7) If you are a real scientist, could you ever believe there is a God > knowing what you believe is fact?
Another sucker who takes the bait: me in this case. ;-)
All-Seeing-I schreef:
> 1) Not using science. What compels you to believe the ToE?
Nothing at all. I even expect I wouldn't know of ToE without science.
> 2) Please give an opinion (not a scientific definition) for why you > think one species can give rise to one or more other species that are > clearly no longer like the original.
How can I give my opinion about that? It is entirely based on my scientific knowledge. So my opinion is just that at the moment: the accumulation of all I know about ToE/biology.
> 3a) If God worked a genuine miracle in your life (and there could be > no other reasonable explanation other then He did), would you tell > others about it?
Absolutely!
> 3b) If no one believe this miracle took place, how would you try to > convince them?
I think I would not try too hard then. I would be afraid to loose all my friends because they think I am a loony.
> 4a) Were you ever religious at one time?
Kind of. When I was 11-13 years old. I was not directly working with God, but I was busy with ghosts and recording voices of the afterlife by analysing white noise. Stuff like that.
> 4b) What caused you to become nonreligious.
Reality. And I must add the Cosmos by Carl Sagan helped a lot too. It ignited my interest in science. Like many adolecents I thought science was boring and that 'voices from the afterlife' were of much greater import (and girls of course). Cosmos opened my eyes: the universe is NOT boring, nor is science.
> 5) Does the ToE bring you any personal comfort knowing that you are > simply the result of unguided processes and a freak coincidence that > caused spontaneous life?
Yes. A lot. Not in the beginning, but now I 'matured' a little I think it is a great thing that the universe produced life that is now contemplating that very universe. I also firmly hope there is more intelligent life out there besides us because I would hate to see us kill of this planet like we are doing now.
> 6) Do you reserve any other explainations that may be posible for > man's origins and for the current state of the earth?
Not seriously. Here is why: Anything worth seriously considering IS CURRENTLY UNDER INVESTIAGTION BY SCIENCE. That is why I like science.
> 7) If you are a real scientist, could you ever believe there is a God > knowing what you believe is fact?
I don't understand that question. For clarity's sake: I do think it is possible there is creator. I (and science) simply haven't found any clues so far to support that believe, hence it says a believe.
There is one thing about this God of yours: If he really cares so much, why doesn't he show himself more clearly? God must be aware of the fact that many of us see no reason to believe in him because we never saw any proof, or even an indication. So why is he hiding like this? Does he only want gullible people in heaven?
> -- > Thanks in advance.
You are welcome.
Regards, Erwin Moller
PS: What are you going to do with the results of your posting? You received a lot.
-- "There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." -- C.A.R. Hoare
Erwin Moller wrote: > Another sucker who takes the bait: me in this case. ;-)
> All-Seeing-I schreef: >> 1) Not using science. What compels you to believe the ToE?
> Nothing at all. > I even expect I wouldn't know of ToE without science.
>> 2) Please give an opinion (not a scientific definition) for why you >> think one species can give rise to one or more other species that are >> clearly no longer like the original.
> How can I give my opinion about that? It is entirely based on my > scientific knowledge. > So my opinion is just that at the moment: the accumulation of all I know > about ToE/biology.
>> 3a) If God worked a genuine miracle in your life (and there could be >> no other reasonable explanation other then He did), would you tell >> others about it?
> Absolutely!
>> 3b) If no one believe this miracle took place, how would you try to >> convince them?
> I think I would not try too hard then. > I would be afraid to loose all my friends because they think I am a loony.
>> 4a) Were you ever religious at one time?
> Kind of. > When I was 11-13 years old. > I was not directly working with God, but I was busy with ghosts and > recording voices of the afterlife by analysing white noise. Stuff like > that.
>> 4b) What caused you to become nonreligious.
> Reality. > And I must add the Cosmos by Carl Sagan helped a lot too. It ignited my > interest in science. > Like many adolecents I thought science was boring and that 'voices from > the afterlife' were of much greater import (and girls of course). > Cosmos opened my eyes: the universe is NOT boring, nor is science.
>> 5) Does the ToE bring you any personal comfort knowing that you are >> simply the result of unguided processes and a freak coincidence that >> caused spontaneous life?
> Yes. > A lot. > Not in the beginning, but now I 'matured' a little I think it is a great > thing that the universe produced life that is now contemplating that > very universe. > I also firmly hope there is more intelligent life out there besides us > because I would hate to see us kill of this planet like we are doing now.
My dad (who was and still is very religious) was convinced that even if the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. began to nuke each other in nuclear war, God Almighty would intervene and stop all those missiles. Because God made a covenant with Noah not to allow any more worldwide catastrophes.
That's a comforting thought--we don't have to fear global thermonuclear war because God will stop it in its tracks.
If that's not the case, and if there are no advanced aliens from whom we can learn either, then it's all up to us. We gotta put this planet Earth right ourselves.
But just think: If there are no intelligent aliens out there, then the entire Universe is ours for the taking! We might have moral qualms about conquering alien civilizations. But if they don't exist, then all those planets--quadrillions of them--will belong to us someday! The possibilities are awesome!
-- Steven L. Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
because I would hate to see us kill of this planet like we are doing now.
> My dad (who was and still is very religious) was convinced that even if > the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. began to nuke each other in nuclear war, God > Almighty would intervene and stop all those missiles. Because God made a > covenant with Noah not to allow any more worldwide catastrophes.
Then there is Reagan's babblings about Armageddon . ..
On 2009-11-09, Erwin Moller <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
> Another sucker who takes the bait: me in this case. ;-)
> All-Seeing-I schreef: >> 1) Not using science. What compels you to believe the ToE?
> Nothing at all. > I even expect I wouldn't know of ToE without science.
We might. Evolution is an algorithm, biology is an implementation. If one were to completely divorce the science from evolution, one would still have left a very elegant, powerful (albeit inefficient) mathematical idea. If one is compelled to believe math, this would answer Maddy's question as well.
On Nov 6, 5:40 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 13:57:43 -0800 (PST), Christopher Denney
> <christopher.den...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 6, 7:35 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote: > >> 1) Not using science. What compels you to believe the ToE? > > Not using the bible, what compels you to believe in god?
> A very high feaver?
> --http://desertphile.org > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water > "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Any number of other hallucinogens have been used throughout history, too. Chemical hallucinogens are typically safe than fevers too.
On Nov 6, 4:35 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> 1) Not using science. What compels you to believe the ToE?
Evidence. But that's science. Whoops.
> 2) Please give an opinion (not a scientific definition) for why you > think one species can give rise to one or more other species that are > clearly no longer like the original.
Evidence. Darn it, science again. It's hard to avoid.
> 3a) If God worked a genuine miracle in your life (and there could be > no other reasonable explanation other then He did), would you tell > others about it?
Sure, why not? I Love telling stories.
> 3b) If no one believe this miracle took place, how would you try to > convince them?
With evidence.
> 4a) Were you ever religious at one time?
As a kid I believed in Santa. But that didn't last long.
> 4b) What caused you to become nonreligious.
Well, Santa obviously doesn't exist, now does he?
> 5) Does the ToE bring you any personal comfort knowing that you are > simply the result of unguided processes and a freak coincidence that > caused spontaneous life?
No. Scientific theories are not intended to provide comfort.
> 6) Do you reserve any other explainations that may be posible for > man's origins and for the current state of the earth?
Sure.
> 7) If you are a real scientist, could you ever believe there is a God > knowing what you believe is fact?
Free Lunch wrote: > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 07:35:14 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I > <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
I could not reply directly to "All-Seeing-I" because I had killfiled him. I can only reply secondarily once someone else has already replied to him.
So here goes:
>> 1) Not using science. What compels you to believe the ToE?
My observation, gathered over my entire lifetime, that nothing is constant in my life except change.
>> 2) Please give an opinion (not a scientific definition) for why you >> think one species can give rise to one or more other species that are >> clearly no longer like the original.
A poodle, a Great Dane, and a chihuahua look more different from each other anatomically than some creatures that biologists have identified as different species.
None of us looks exactly like our parents. And they don't look exactly like their own parents (= our grandparents). And so on. Differences can build up dramatically, over many generations.
>> 3a) If God worked a genuine miracle in your life (and there could be >> no other reasonable explanation other then He did), would you tell >> others about it?
No. I prefer to keep my advantages secret.
If I won the state lottery, I wouldn't tell others about it either.
>> 3b) If no one believe this miracle took place, how would you try to >> convince them?
N/A
>> 4a) Were you ever religious at one time?
I believed in a Higher Power that created this Universe, and I still do.
But I don't believe in a God that constantly intervenes here on Earth.
>> 4b) What caused you to become nonreligious.
N/A
>> 5) Does the ToE bring you any personal comfort knowing that you are >> simply the result of unguided processes and a freak coincidence that >> caused spontaneous life?
First of all, it's not clear that abiogenesis is a "freak coincidence." It may be occurring all over this Universe; we just don't know yet.
There's both comfort and discomfort when I dwell on the ToE.
Comfort, because it awes me that the laws of physics and chemistry, combined with a principle as elegant as natural selection, could have produced so much variety on this planet.
Discomfort, because if there are no gods or super-intelligent aliens to help us when we get into jams, we had better make sure we can stand on our own two feet and run this planet right.
Comfort, because if there are no intelligent aliens out there, then all those inhabited planets may belong to us someday! If aliens existed, we might be squeamish about conquering them. But if they don't exist, we can move into those planets whenever we like.
SETI has found nothing out to 500 light years. That volume of space, encompassing thousands of planets, will be ours someday! And that's a very hopeful view of man's future.
>> 6) Do you reserve any other explainations that may be posible for >> man's origins and for the current state of the earth?
I reserve my Higher Power explanation for the existence of this universe.
>> 7) If you are a real scientist, could you ever believe there is a God >> knowing what you believe is fact?
I'm not a scientist.
But I believe a lot of things for which I don't have scientific proof:
1. A Higher Power created this Universe.
2. Humanity will have a bright future. We will continue to press outward into space, as far as we can--until we run into aliens who will stand in our way. Then we'll have to decide what to do about them.
3. I love my parents.
Etc.
-- Steven L. Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Sapient Fridge wrote: > In message > <4ce33752-1a11-42d5-bb91-2d7d87f00...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes >> 1) Not using science. What compels you to believe the ToE?
>> 2) Please give an opinion (not a scientific definition) for why you >> think one species can give rise to one or more other species that are >> clearly no longer like the original.
>> 3a) If God worked a genuine miracle in your life (and there could be >> no other reasonable explanation other then He did), would you tell >> others about it?
>> 3b) If no one believe this miracle took place, how would you try to >> convince them?
>> 4a) Were you ever religious at one time?
>> 4b) What caused you to become nonreligious.
>> 5) Does the ToE bring you any personal comfort knowing that you are >> simply the result of unguided processes and a freak coincidence that >> caused spontaneous life?
>> 6) Do you reserve any other explainations that may be posible for >> man's origins and for the current state of the earth?
>> 7) If you are a real scientist, could you ever believe there is a God >> knowing what you believe is fact?
> I'm impressed.
> I was almost tempted to nominate your post as a POTM as it was one of > the most nicely targeted thought provoking (though trollish) set of > questions I've seen on this newsgroup, as demonstrated by the responses.
> The only reason I didn't nominate is that if it were to appear on its > own in the archive the questions themselves are not impressive, it's the > response that make it remarkable.
Yep. It's as close to a "Gallup poll" of the regulars on this NG as I have seen.
I could not reply directly to "All-Seeing-I" because I had killfiled him. I can only reply secondarily once someone else has already replied to him.
-- Steven L. Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
|
