Heaven's eternity or eternal earthly wealth?

[harvey19]

I know a biochemist who believes in the creation theory.

This person is very sensible and evaluates situations.

I am only pointing out this to show different learned people hold different views.

[SnailyBoy]

The comment wasn't about comparing a meal with belief it was about being undecided.

 

If you're undecided you have no views one way or the other and people shouldn't assume that you have until you make your mind up, or spin a coin.

 

We're in agreement on that one aren't we?

 

---------- Post added 27-01-2015 at 15:25 ----------

 

I'm

Everyone is not like me, I am in my own way ,just like everybody else, unique.

 

Yes it would suffice, and only someone like you would be that bothered to take it further. The original meaning of Atheism was quite straight forward and accepted. Then the obsessed came along and decided to redefine it to suit themselves.

 

For proof of that, simply Google the word Atheist and read the top statement at the side of the banner inserted by the fanatics.

 

'Older dictionaries' Yes that would be the ones that defined the original meaning still accepted by most of us before the nut jobs arrived on the scene.

 

'American Atheists' " No one asks this question enough " :hihi:

 

America, land of more nuts than a KP factory.

 

Not one for putting words or views into someones mouth, that's a cracker.

 

 

The customer was undecided, but when he got hungry enough he would no doubt decide.

 

---------- Post added 27-01-2015 at 14:28 ----------

 

 

Yes I am, evolution is factual in that there is evidence, and quite a lot of it that certain things have changed over time, but it is not conclusive that it is the answer to everything.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CDQQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fscience%2F2013%2Foct%2F17%2Fskull-homo-erectus-human-evolution&ei=4KzHVLLYGLDd7QaSnoHQBg&usg=AFQjCNEJBltR_QkPT2GqE5kFfxyWqSDmPg&bvm=bv.84349003,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

There are qualified scientists who still question the theory of evolution as the answer to everything so why should I accept it without question?

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDQQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.truthinscience.org.uk%2Ftis2%2Findex.php%2Ffaqs-mainmenu-54.html&ei=a6fHVN3xHYOa7gbxwYDACg&usg=AFQjCNG8rXkbe__izFwjbW91GbS6WK_tpg&bvm=bv.84349003,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

My totally unqualified view is that it explains somethings - so has it's place - but not everything.

 

I certainly don't believe that the world is only thousands of years old rather than the several billion claimed by science.

 

I would certainly listen to a scientist before a theologian but there are scientists that are also believers, another reason why I am Agnostic.

 

The thing that I admire about science is that it continues to question, it doesn't just say " Oh, OK that's that then."

 

Even Einsteins theory of relativity keeps being tested against new research, which is as it should be.

 

As far as I'm aware old Albert's hanging in there to date.

 

How can you be 'Agnostic' about evolution?

 

---------- Post added 27-01-2015 at 17:11 ----------

 

I know a biochemist who believes in the creation theory.

This person is very sensible and evaluates situations.

I am only pointing out this to show different learned people hold different views.

 

I believe that evolution is the best explantion we have about the diversity of life on Earth.

 

What view do you hold?

[harvey19]

The comment wasn't about comparing a meal with belief it was about being undecided.

 

If you're undecided you have no views one way or the other and people shouldn't assume that you have until you make your mind up, or spin a coin.

 

We're in agreement on that one aren't we?

 

---------- Post added 27-01-2015 at 15:25 ----------

 

I'm

 

How can you be 'Agnostic' about evolution?

 

---------- Post added 27-01-2015 at 17:11 ----------

 

 

I believe that evolution is the best explantion we have about the diversity of life on Earth.

 

What view do you hold?

 

Undecided !

[SnailyBoy]

 

 

 

 

 

Undecided !

 

Undecided? What evidence did you use?

[mjw47]

I good proportion of the small number of "scientists" listed there are not evolutionary biologists. And most have ties to the Wedge movement and dodgy creationist/Christian organisations.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism

 

Typical sample:

 

Christine B. Beaucage, Ph.D. Mathematics, State University of New York at Stony Brook. Author of “Taste and See”, which appears to be a novel. No academic affiliation found.

 

Stephen J. Cheesman, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Toronto. No information on research or current academic affiliation found. Appears to be involved in various ministries.

 

Shun Yan Cheung, Associate Professor of Computer Science, Emory University. Has some publications in an unrelated field. Hardcore creationist who runs a webpage presenting the overwhelming evidence for the accuracy of the Bible and the falsity of evolution targeted at non-specialists. All the standard creationist PRATTs are there.

 

Donald Clark, Ph.D. Physical Biochemistry, Louisiana State University. Currently Vice President of Development and Medical Affairs at Houston Biotechnology Inc. (no updated information about the company located), and contributor to the Creation Moments website. Young earth creationist who rejects astronomy as well as biology since it conflicts with his reading of the Bible, saying that “[w]e must interpret our physical observations based on the scripture and not interpret the scripture based on our physical observations.”

 

Those so-called "scientists" are a very poor reason to remain on the fence.

 

Really? How many Ph.D qualifications do you possess?

 

There are plenty of Atheists prepared to believe Richard Dawkins version of events although his qualification is in Biology and there are Scientists with qualifications in Physics that either believe in some possibility of intelligent design, or at the very least have some level of doubt on the matter.

 

Including this guy.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CFwQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fculture%2Ftvandradio%2F11143875%2FProf-Brian-Cox-Theres-a-naivety-in-saying-there-is-no-God.html&ei=3sbHVOKJC-jW7Qa0s4GQCw&usg=AFQjCNGz2rKByCL98snDO-TFzSoI03c9tw&bvm=bv.84349003,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

That's the thing, there is disagreement amongst highly intelligent people as to what's going on.

 

I do not regard myself as highly intelligent,just intelligent enough to have some grasp of how little I know.

 

Which in fairness, makes me a bit brighter than a lot of people who appear to be under the impression that they know just about everything.

 

To me the only logical position to adopt is Agnostic, ' I do not know ' which is an honest acceptance of the way things stand at present.

 

The fact is that whatever they say, no one knows I'm simply accepting the truth of that fact.

[SnailyBoy]

Really? How many Ph.D qualifications do you possess?

 

There are plenty of Atheists prepared to believe Richard Dawkins version of events although his qualification is in Biology and there are Scientists with qualifications in Physics that either believe in some possibility of intelligent design, or at the very least have some level of doubt on the matter.

 

Including this guy.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CFwQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fculture%2Ftvandradio%2F11143875%2FProf-Brian-Cox-Theres-a-naivety-in-saying-there-is-no-God.html&ei=3sbHVOKJC-jW7Qa0s4GQCw&usg=AFQjCNGz2rKByCL98snDO-TFzSoI03c9tw&bvm=bv.84349003,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

That's the thing, there is disagreement amongst highly intelligent people as to what's going on.

 

I do not regard myself as highly intelligent,just intelligent enough to have some grasp of how little I know.

 

Which in fairness, makes me a bit brighter than a lot of people who appear to be under the impression that they know just about everything.

 

To me the only logical position to adopt is Agnostic, ' I do not know ' which is an honest acceptance of the way things stand at present.

 

The fact is that whatever they say, no one knows I'm simply accepting the truth of that fact.

 

Nonsense, the concensus between the qualified scientific community is overwhelming in favour of evolution. There are people who do know and have the evidence, you're bordering on intellectual dishonesty

 

The evidence is out there, so with time you could know more.

[mjw47]

 

---------- Post added 27-01-2015 at 15:25 ----------

 

I'm

 

How can you be 'Agnostic' about evolution?

 

---------- Post added 27-01-2015 at 17:11 ----------

 

 

 

And there you go again, ignoring the parts that don't fit with your need to argue.

 

" Evolution is factual in that there is evidence, and quite a lot of it that certain things have changed over time, but it is not conclusive that it is the answer to everything.

 

The 'missing link (s)' proof of evolutionary effect upon human development is still under debate.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CFsQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedarwinpapers.com%2Foldsite%2Fnumber9%2Fdarwin9.htm&ei=TdHHVKejFM_H7Ab09ICoCA&usg=AFQjCNE75NHSGfmeWjwRU-kMtfmaJ1YoAg&bvm=bv.84349003,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

Don't you find that a little strange? As we are supposedly the most intelligent of all animals and were the first to ceremoniously bury our dead, wouldn't you think that there would be more evidence available of human transitionary stages than that of other species?

 

But apparently there are less, so what's the reason?

 

---------- Post added 27-01-2015 at 18:05 ----------

 

 

The evidence is out there, so with time you could know more.

 

Yes, maybe more, but would I ever know everything?

 

There was once a consensus that all swans were white.

 

That consensus lasted until they found the first black swan.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&sqi=2&ved=0CD0QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblackswanevents.org%2F%3Fpage_id%3D26&ei=o9LHVIyrEqWu7Abv04H4Bw&usg=AFQjCNGewXcQDcika0cv-I4uLFlQa7Ed6g&bvm=bv.84349003,d.ZGU&cad=rja

[harvey19]

Undecided? What evidence did you use?

 

That it is impossible to communicate with a Creator or any other source which brought the universe into existence.

How do you think the universe came into existence and what proof do you have to back it up ?

Here is a question for you about evolution. If monkeys have advanced furthest in the evolution stakes why are they unable to speak when budgies can ?

Edited January 27, 2015 by harvey19

[SnailyBoy]

That it is impossible to communicate with a Creator or any other source which brought the universe into existence.

How do you think the universe came into existence and what proof do you have to back it up ?

Here is a question for you about evolution. If monkeys have advanced furthest in the evolution stakes why are they unable to speak when budgies can ?

 

You've got to be winding me up.

 

---------- Post added 27-01-2015 at 18:25 ----------

 

 

---------- Post added 27-01-2015 at 15:25 ----------

 

 

And there you go again, ignoring the parts that don't fit with your need to argue.

 

" Evolution is factual in that there is evidence, and quite a lot of it that certain things have changed over time, but it is not conclusive that it is the answer to everything.

 

The 'missing link (s)' proof of evolutionary effect upon human development is still under debate.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CFsQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedarwinpapers.com%2Foldsite%2Fnumber9%2Fdarwin9.htm&ei=TdHHVKejFM_H7Ab09ICoCA&usg=AFQjCNE75NHSGfmeWjwRU-kMtfmaJ1YoAg&bvm=bv.84349003,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

Don't you find that a little strange? As we are supposedly the most intelligent of all animals and were the first to ceremoniously bury our dead, wouldn't you think that there would be more evidence available of human transitionary stages than that of other species?

 

But apparently there are less, so what's the reason?

 

---------- Post added 27-01-2015 at 18:05 ----------

 

 

Yes, maybe more, but would I ever know everything?

 

There was once a consensus that all swans were white.

 

That consensus lasted until they found the first black swan.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&sqi=2&ved=0CD0QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblackswanevents.org%2F%3Fpage_id%3D26&ei=o9LHVIyrEqWu7Abv04H4Bw&usg=AFQjCNGewXcQDcika0cv-I4uLFlQa7Ed6g&bvm=bv.84349003,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

The answer to everything? Evolution is the explanation regarding the diversity of life on Earth

 

We know more than we did 100 years ago and will know more in another 100 years.

 

Science moves forward and evaluates new evidence and refines, why do you see that as a negative?

Edited January 27, 2015 by SnailyBoy

[mjw47]

[quote=mjw47;1087040

 

evolution is factual in that there is evidence, and quite a lot of it that certain things have changed over time, but it is not conclusive that it is the answer to everything.

 

 

 

I would certainly listen to a scientist before a theologian but there are scientists that are also believers, another reason why I am Agnostic.

 

The thing that I admire about science is that it continues to question, it doesn't just say " Oh, OK that's that then."

 

Even Einsteins theory of relativity keeps being tested against new research, which is as it should be.

 

As far as I'm aware old Albert's hanging in there to date.

 

Snailyboy.

 

What part of the above previous post of mine lead you to come out with;

 

'Science moves forward and evaluates new evidence and refines, why do you see that as a negative?'

 

You don't appear to be able to see anything which doesn't fit in with your mindset, alternatively maybe you've been drinking.