Well yeah, you blew it big time... this will be dealt with appropriately. As soon as I can get in contact with my flying spaghetti overlord LoL
Well yeah, you blew it big time... this will be dealt with appropriately. As soon as I can get in contact with my flying spaghetti overlord LoL
ITSE MEO, MARIO, and I likse pasta very mucho!! Don't forget to bring the meatballs.Originally Posted by HADES
Well yeah, you blew it big time... this will be dealt with appropriately. As soon as I can get in contact with my flying spaghetti overlord LoL
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
That link is actually a gem if you examine the cover closely, "[T]he nearest thing to having 'the Bible Jesus read'". He read Talmud and Tanach, not a Bible.
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
I'm more than willing to debate The Free Market and its' Invisible Hand as being an actual faith. Along with the belief in a supernatural power which interacts with human affairs, it also has the language of a religion. I've heard people discuss a rise in stocks using language such as "This is the market saying," and "The market has spoken that,". They treat it like a living, sentient entity they must cater their life to. There was also that recent poll about economics which decided that answers were enlightened or unenlightened, not correct or incorrect.
New York City is the new Delphi, and stock brokers the new Pythia
I might be "old-school" there, but a (religious) belief still requires some kind of deity to be circled around in my book (which is why I'll never admit to call Buddism a religion).
Believing into the Free Market is a pseudo-religion at best, not alone because the free market now is undoubtably manmade. Though again it's a good indicator for how imbicile we humans are if we submit ourselves into worshipping a selfcreated abstract umbrella term implying all the mechanisms and dynamics of global "unregulated" trading.
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
I've heard the ideals of the Free Market called "the economist's answer to Scientology"
FakeEdit: Your definition of religion would disqualify Shinto and a good chunk of North American Indian mythology.
Not too familiar with the Indian religions but Shinto is classified as both animistic and polytheistic which makes it fit perfectly with my definition (which is just that, a personal one, I'm not saying it bears general weight.)
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
Money is definitely a belief system. You have to believe that others will honour the worthless pieces of paper, and currencies have frequently crashed to being worthless. There is no point in continuing a discussion where you believe that science is authoritative, but do not accept that your belief in science is due to it being a belief. Lets try something else.
Science claims that we can never know if something is true, and it only accepts science as a method to disprove scientific statements. So lets try a belief game. Assume the following statements are all true
1) Science tells us the Universe is really old.
2) It was actually made 10 minutes ago by God in the exact state you see now.
3) God has told 50 people the truth about this.
Which belief system is correct, the scientific one or the 50 people who were told? Interestingly they are both true, however the scientific one is true because it is only able to answer questions within the framework of science, where it considers observation the highest form of truth.
Now move forward 2000 years, and those 50 people have set up a worldwide church using all sorts of odd ideas to control the church membership. However at the core it still claims that God made the world 2000 years ago. Does it still contain the truth, even with the strange trappings added on that people thought would be nice? Have those trappings changed the fact that God made the world, and that science cannot accept it?
Science claims that we can never know if something is true, and it only accepts science as a method to disprove scientific statements. So lets try a belief game. Assume the following statements are all true
1) Science tells us lightning are electrical discharges.
2) It was actually Zeus throwing a lighting bolt out of his quiver
3) Zeus has told 50 people the truth about this.
Which belief system is correct, the scientific one or the 50 people who were told? Interestingly they are both true, however the scientific one is true because it is only able to answer questions within the framework of science, where it considers observation the highest form of truth.
Now move forward 2000 years, and those 50 people have set up a worldwide church using all sorts of odd ideas to control the church membership. However at the core it still claims that Zeus is throwing lightning bolts out of his quiver during thunderstorms. Does it still contain the truth, even with the strange trappings added on that people thought would be nice? Have those trappings changed the fact that Zeus threw lightnings, and that science cannot accept it?
The difference between science and a religion is, (and xutech pointed that out in great lengths) it allows falsification and adjustment, whereas religion puts up a preshaped ideal disapproving falsification. We've had apparatures at school to create (admittingly smaller) lightning bolts. Like William Smith I could go outside, dig threw the Earth and analyse geological patterns. I could learn Egypt hieroglyphs and study archeology to examine first hand dig sites near pyramids giving hints on workers camps and read texts about how the pyramdis were built. I give in I'm then believing (in) my eyes, ears, hands and the logical capabilities of the gray matter between my ears. And even that is quite a risk actually, we also could be a brain in the jar. Let's asume it's not that way, eventually though I have some an empirical foundation other people are able to gain as well the exact same way. Experiences of god though turn out to be highly variable between different individuals, they aren't reproducable at all.
The thing is: Religion only works immanent within its selfcreated realm, science is - within this universe - universal.
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
You'd do really well in evidence based medicine.
Objectives To determine whether parachutes are effective in preventing major trauma related to gravitational challenge.
Design Systematic review of randomised controlled trials.
Data sources: Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases; appropriate internet sites and citation lists.
Study selection: Studies showing the effects of using a parachute during free fall.
Main outcome measure Death or major trauma, defined as an injury severity score > 15.
Results We were unable to identify any randomised controlled trials of parachute intervention.
Conclusions As with many interventions intended to prevent ill health, the effectiveness of parachutes has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation by using randomised controlled trials. Advocates of evidence based medicine have criticised the adoption of interventions evaluated by using only observational data. We think that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine organised and participated in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial of the parachute.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/
That's a nice troll on academic levels, gotta admit.
Regardless, first you're throwing a mindgame at me which requires your god to exist and in response to me doing the same thing exchanging the deity's name adding a point to the discussion you're throwing above at me. Right, but I forgot you're out of the discussion because I prefer to rate scientific results because I can myself reproduce a lot if not all observations, given time, resources/money and background knowledge that is, in short I can collect evidence myself and I can have other people support (or correct) my results. That's impossible for supernatural deities.
It's interesting that, if the Turin Shroud actually isn't a fake, it's a big indicator for that Jesus actually didn't die at the cross but survived. Dead men don't bleed.
Ask yourself why there haven't there been any Christian native Indian tribes in the US before the "white man" arrived. Why aren't there Hindus in Europe? Has your god a local preference? Is your god even a racist? Or is god appearing differently across the world? As Yahweh in the orient and oxident, as Krishna in India and as Manitu in North America?
You said you chose your god? What is it that makes you think you picked the right one and not end up in whatever equivalent of hell for worshipping wrong gods?
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
The mindgame was there to show the limitations of science. The paper I also gave you does the same sort of thing. If you're so fixated by your faith that you cannot see that it is based upon a lot of unprovable assumptions then you are actually at risk of rejecting parachutes. As a retarded imbecile I will remain mired in my uncritical stupidity, but I think I still like parachutes
Your mindgame was a predefined setup, just like religion that requires your god to be true. We have agreed in this thread that you cannot prove or disprove the existance of any kind of divine being. Give me a mindgame that leaves out the parameter of god=1 and we can talk again. Or are you expecting me to be astonished when someone lights a piece of paper on fire for the piece of paper to actually catch fire? That's what I ment with immanent... Within its own parameters religion may work but it gets rather shakey if you remove the frame. Confronting religion with reality...
To go back on my examples, I can show you at least indicators of not proves of how the pyramids weren't build by jewis hslaves but Egypt workers who got paid and were reasonably supplied with food, water and a place to rest near the building sites. No jewish slaves working in Egypt to build the pyramids crashes with the Exodus.
The Turin Shroud, if really true, as said, is a pretty good indicator for Jesus not dying at the cross, along with reports and other observations about crucifications in the 1st century in the Roman province of Judaea (which actually mkes it more reasonable he disappeared from his grave and was seen walking. Actually that's a pretty good case for occam's razor. A supernatural uprise from being dead or having survived the torture which was of comparabily short duration).
It's about your (and anybody else's respective) prefered version holding any merit, not if out there may something have or have not created the universe. And believing any version is superiour (and when you chose a belief you obviously have to hold it superior to others) to any other man-made superstition/myth/cult/religion circeling about something we cannot prove or disprove and probably not even understand, if there is, is retarded. Like I said, the spaghetti monster is just a legit a deity as Jesus or Krishna. The only difference is that the creator of the first "god" at least is aware he's kidding around.
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
So to sum up:
religions are stupid, belief is not stupid, science is gambling
c/d?
c + G-zuz luvs you, too
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
Science is reality.
Mal and Algey are basically just arguing the same thing over and over at this point, so I'm gonna suggest y'all give that a little rest.
I've been saying the same thing for five pages, which is why I'd already said I was giving up the waste of time. The more interesting discussion (for me) is the evidence for Jesus and the historical narrative of the bible, however you can't discuss that when people refuse to accept that God could even exist or it goes
1) Jesus was seen by many people to heal the sick
Answer) Well that can't have happened, you're an idiot.
There is evidence that Jesus as a person actually existed. I don't see what that has to do with god. So he was healing sick? How can we be sure that they WERE indeed sick, and not a staging in order to solidify his "godnes"? If you see someone getting sawed in 2 by David Copperfield, do you really think the guy got split in 2? And yet you can have 2 or 3k people claiming that he did it... and it was all true...
* "The message of Jesus as I understand it," said Gandhi, "is contained in the Sermon on the Mount unadulterated and taken as a whole... If then I had to face only the Sermon on the Mount and my own interpretation of it, I should not hesitate to say, 'Oh, yes, I am a Christian.' But negatively I can tell you that in my humble opinion, what passes as Christianity is a negation of the Sermon on the Mount... I am speaking of the Christian belief, of Christianity as it is understood in the west."
* "I consider myself a soldier."
* "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."
* Talking about the Gospel passage of the rich young man, he said, "St. Mark has vividly described the scene. Jesus is in his solemn mood. He is earnest. He talks about eternity. He knows the world about him. He is himself the greatest economist of his time. He succeeded in sermonising time and space - He transcends them. It is to him at the best that one comes running, kneels down and asks, "Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" And Jesus said unto him, "One thing thou lackest. Go thy way, sell what thou hast and give it to the poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven - come, take up the cross and follow me." Here you have an eternal rule of life stated in the noblest words the English language is capable of producing." Let us seek first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, he said, and the irrevocable promise is that everything will be added upon us. "These are real economics. May you and I treasure them and enforce them in our daily life."
* "Of all the things I have read what remained with me forever was that Jesus came almost to give a new law - not an eye for an eye but to receive two blows when only one was given, and to go two miles when they were asked to go one. I came to see that the Sermon on the Mount was the whole of Christianity for him who wanted to live a Christian life. It is that sermon that has endeared Jesus to me."
* "Jesus occupies in my heart," said Gandhi, "the place of one of the greatest teachers who have had a considerable influence on my life. I shall say to the Hindus that your life will be incomplete unless you reverentially study the teachings of Jesus... Make this world the kingdom of God and his righteousness and everything will be added unto you. I tell you that if you will understand, appreciate, and act up to the spirit of this passage, you won't need to know what place Jesus or any other teacher occupies in your heart."
* "The example of Jesus suffering is a factor in the composition of my un-dying faith in non-violence. What then does Jesus mean to me? To me, He was one of the greatest teachers humanity has ever had."
* "in Jesus' own life was the key of his nearness to God, that he expressed as no other could, the spirit and will of God... I do believe that something of the spirit that Jesus exemplified in the highest measure, in its most profound human sense exist... If I did not believe it, I should be a sceptic, and to be a sceptic is to live a life that is empty and lacking moral content. Or, what is the same thing, to condemn the human race to a negative end."
* "I refuse to believe that there not exists or has ever existed a person that has not made use of his example to lessen his sins, even though he may have done so without realising it. The lives of all have, in some greater or lesser degree, been changed by His presence, His actions and the words spoken by His divine voice... I believe that he belongs not solely to Christianity, but to the entire world; to all races and people, it matters litle under what flag, name or doctrine they may work, profess a faith or worship a God inherited from their ancestors."
* "Seeming failure is not of the law of Satyagraha but of incompetence of the Satyagrahist by whatever cause induced. The name of Jesus at once comes to the lips. It is an instance of brillant failure. And he has been acclaimed in the west as the prince of passive resisters. I showed years ago in South Africa that the adjective 'passive' was a misnomer, at least as applied to Jesus. He was the most active resister known perhaps to history. His was non-violence par excellence."
* "stagger humanity without shedding a drop of blood," by following the example of "Gentle Jesus, the greatest passive resister the world has seen." Though Jesus died, Gandhi said, "He lives in the memory of all true sons of God."
* would-be saints have always tried to imitate Christ, and Gandhi's aim "to live the Sermon on the Mount" puts him in that tradition, even to the point of martyrdom.
* want to tell others what I feel so particularly keen about, namely what is called non-resistance, but what is essentially nothing other than the teaching of love undistorted by false interpretations…This law has been proclaimed by all the world's sages, Indian, Chinese, Jewish, Greek, and Roman. I think it has been expressed most clearly of all by Christ…
You're kidding, right? How many times did I state that the case of existance of a deity isn't at all relevant to the discussion. I was merely and excessively pointing out that any human interpretation - by nature if you will - has to be flawed and thus as an interpretation is miles away from any potential true deity. Your problem is that due to your belief there is no other god than your god and questioning the interpretation of a deity comes down to denying the existance of your deity in practice.
Oh, and guess what, smugfully quoting myself from a few posts back predicting just that.
I accept that the current pov by science that a historic Jesus has lived, though since I am not believing the same things you do, the historical Jesus isn't automatically your part-of-the-holy-trinity-and-gods-son-Jesus for everybody. You may believe what you will and so may I; the key thing is evidence. I can preach to you about the flying spaghetti monster all night long, you won't convert without some kind of evidence it's holding any more credibility than the religion you chose to follow and vice versa you will not bring me one step closer to Christianity without delivering some evidence for the correctness of your religion's interpretation for a potential unprovable deity. You can't hide behind the circumstance science isn't able to prove or disprove a supernatural being and simultaniously claim your (religion's) interpretation of that supernatural being that could or could not be is the correct one, or even one I remotely have to consider to be reasonable on top of others.
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
What you've failed to explain is who is this flying spaghetti monster?
What impossible things is he promising to provide me with? How does believing in him elevate me above others who don't? How does he promise to make MY life better? Does belief in him increase my ability to believe myself and the rest of my race are somehow of universal importance?
And can he be inserted into any difficult question or problem as the greatest, best, only and unquestionable solution?
If so, I think you don't need any proof to start getting converts.
I don't need to since I'm not advocating for the FSM to be a true deity, and in fact Algey hasn't provided the things you're asking for either, despite I have asked for simila things a couple of times.
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
FSM-wiki
The sad thing is that you'll probably even stumble over nutthatters starting to seriously believe in what has been started and created as a parody.
If in 2000 years people stumble over the diary of a WoW-player, who knows, they might be founding cults to honour the sacred heroes fighting in the afterlife's eternal battle arena Azeroth (not too far away fro mthe idea of Valhalla at first glance, is it).
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
I was being entirely sarcastic, I hope it was obvious.
People are not religious because of facts, people are religious because of what being religious offers them. However abstract the gains may be. And I agree, I think Shires of Azeroth are not far away.
Of course I haven't, what would be the point. I stated quite clearly that I choose to believe quite simply because of choices that I have made and the appeal of the information to myself. This is exactly the same way anyone else chooses what they believe.
As for getting into arguments about religions all being manmade and as such of no use, if God doesn't exist then of course they are. Added to that the statement “only those propositions that are obtained through experience are scientific, and thus acceptable as true,” is not supported itself by any kind of empirical evidence. Oddly enough we don't have enough common ground to discuss anything at all within that framework.
read dawkins
You either cleary are not reading properly or fail to understand that just because god for you is Yahweh+Jesus, that doesn't have to be this way for anybody else. Read: Maybe the true existing deity out there isn't the abrahamic but one of the hindu gods, or Manitu, or Zeus along with the Greek pantheon, or neither of all the known interpretations.
Domain of definition for deity/god:
you: deity = x; x = {Christian god}
me: deity = x; x = {amount of described and not described potential deities}
Your inability to enlarge your domain of definition is what let's you cry "it's useless to discuss anything if you insist there is no god". I accept that you for your personal belief have made set up that definition, but for the sake of the hypothetical possibility you could've betted on the wrong horse, for someone working with science it should be a possible thing to do. If every believer on Earth would be a Christian it would be something different, alas it's not this way. Let's assume for a second christianity IS right, then it didn't stop about 900 million people from being Hindu, and about 1,5 bil people from being moslems, which - if Jesus was a god indeed - shows well enough religion doesn't need a deity to exist at all. It's a manmade institution. And regarding that even in your own holy book it's noted down WHO was ment to create the church (Peter, not Jesus), it shouldn't be a thought too hard to fathom for you. Jesus hasn't built a chruch himself nor has he left any (canonial) writings himself. Go tell me the roman-catholic church wasn't built up by men? Inspired by a potential deity and it's sourrounding legends/stories/myths, yes, but that's what makes it a religion.
The facts have a strong anti-A- bias.
I have never said that God must be Jesus, or that my belief is true for anyone other than myself. What I have said is that if a god did something and told people then that would be a truth.
That's like saying: "If magic and wizards were real, then Harry Potter would be truth." It's a complete non-statement.
What you're failing to examine is, even if your god is real, what kind of person is he, modeled on his behavior recorded in his own "word"? (And you have to use ALL of it, not just the fluffy parts.)
I agree Sircussalot, it's time you read Dawkins, or re-read him if you have.
I think you need to rethink that.
What you're saying doesn't make any sense. IF anything happened it would be truth, because it happened. The key word is IF.
Your statement was a logical absurdity. If some wizards exist then Harry Potter wouldn't have to exist at all. The statement I made is perfectly correct, yet has not been accepted by the people who want to have a "discussion" and is the reason we aren't bothering to continue it.
Alright you win the Harry Potter section of the "discussion".
Now please address the last thing I said, because the self-admitted core of your argument is ridiculous.
Saying: IF (insert fantastical thing) THEN (fantastical conclusion), and providing no evidence to back up what you're saying is laughable. This is why people ridicule your method of thought.
"IF there were a giant tea pot floating just behind Jupiter and Richard Dawkins told me about it, THEN it would be very large, and practically impossible to disprove."
You said it your self, "sense" is the key word. There is no sense in religion, that's what holds it together from shattering under the weight of logic and reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief
Russels teapot is a physical item and thus not that hard to disagree with. You could at least trot out pink unicorns or garage monsters. I'm afraid that you're also misusing his argument (I have a feeling you've read Dawkins), he wasn't an idiot [calling Dawkins not you an idiot] and made it small...
The problem is that there would be the question of how such an item within the universe came to exist. A god that creates the universe creates both time and space, and as such is no worse a problem than how the universe came to exist.If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
So there is no reason to doubt
If [logically plausible thing] then [logically plausible thing]
We can choose to not believe it, but there is no proof of our belief in that case, nor can we claim our belief is logical.
I'm looking forward to your logical disproof of religion.
I can't disagree with you more strongly. But, like most religious discussions I find this one to be entirely pointless.
You are free to chose what you believe and to entertain the notion that everyone does what you are doing (which smacks of self-justification to me tbh). Just as I am free to believe that there is a VAST gulf between scientific knowledge and religious teachings.
Seems to be time to agree to disagree, in my case anyway.
Of course it is pointless. Atheists believe that they are using a higher form of knowing to create their beliefs, in exactly the same way that religious people do. As such you believe that science gives a higher form of knowledge than religious teaching, but there is no scientific basis for that as a statement, it is a belief structure. As we've shown science cannot say anything about morals, how to live your life, the claims of religion etc, yet an atheist will always say that science tells us that religions are stupid.
Science is very powerful, but also very limited. Most beliefs are not at all scientific as they don't deal with natural phenomina. That is what I love about Dawkins. He claims that people who teach children their beliefs are child abusers, however he thinks his beliefs should be taught to children
Scientists and atheists are using knowledge to explain the world that surrounds us, and religious people are using a fairy tail book to do the same. Science might not teach about morals but so doesn't religion. Unless you are trying to tell me that if you were not religious you would go out and rape and murder women and children?
Science is not limited at all. There are no boundaries for science, the only boundary is human imagination and knowledge. Thank your lord or whoever you believe in, that there are people who are curious and want to know more about the world we live in, otherwise we would still be living in caves.
Dawkins is not teaching any beliefs, he is teaching rationality, logic, and thought. Not just believing in some fairy tail...no matter what book it's written in.
EDIT: Next time you get sick, you might as well go to the church and pray to your overlord instead to the hospital/pharmacy, will be much cheaper...trust me.
I'd just get a collegue (or my wife) to treat me, however I'd also pray.
Dawkins is teaching beliefs, he is saying that his way of looking at the world is corrct with no justification for doing so, and then calling anyone who doesn't agree a child abuser.
Also for your most interesting point on science not being limited. Could you tell me using science if anyone loves you? Actually could you prove that they even exist please.
Yep, we're the sum total of the chemical goo we're made of. So if you take a small slice of someone's brain they will not love anybody, because that is where their mind is.
I think, therefore I am
Yeah sure your wife will treat you...if it's a cold or something trivial. Would love to see her treat you if you needed some surgery or something more complex, that will be interesting.
As I said it, Dawkins is not teaching his view of the world, he is just saying "USE YOUR BRAIN, AND THINK". Religions teach "DON'T THINK, WE WILL TELL YOU".
I'm sure someone is doing some kind of research on the matter of love and the human emotions. I'm not scientist so can't say anything on the matter, if you are keen you can look up in google.
Something complex I'd expect her to refer me appropriately.
Telling people reject one type of knowledge and use this type because I say it is better with no proof isn't teaching a viewpoint. Have you even read what you typed there? Dawkins wants everyone to agree with his philosophy of knowledge, and is viciously intolerant of those who do not agree with him.
Religions don't all tell people not to think at all. The whole point of most religions is to reveal God, not explain how the world functions. Our view of science for years was one of using science to reveal Gods creation, to understand it. This is because one of the core beliefs of science is that the universe is rational and can be understood. This oddly stems from the concept that it was created by a rational deity that isn't capricious.
What type of knowledge religion offers?!! Dawkins treats all religions as equal, he is trying to convince people to think rationally and think by them self. Science is looking for answers and is not satisfied with the answer "god created it", because it's too simple and retarded. Science believes there are no boundaries for what we can learn and understand, and is pushing hard the boundaries imagination and human intellect.
Anyway i'm done writing here, it's like talking to some brick wall. It was fun at some point but now it's pity.
I love how after 8 pages everyone is still referring to religion and science as if they're mutually exclusive.
The idea that I have "free will" is the only irrational belief that I allow myself.
If I am wrong, I had no choice in the matter.
Where have I placed limits on what we can learn, or suggested that science shouldn't keep pushing forwards? I have stated that science isn't the best tool for thinking about lots of things, because it isn't.
You want to believe without evidence that your beliefs have some kind of superior foundation and are not willing to challenge them. That is fine, however when like Dawkins you try to force your beliefs onto others through rudeness and intolerance then it becomes a problem.
They have to, otherwise it damages their argument. Religion = not thinking, science = enlightened individual who has rejected superstition and is more evolved. Wish I could remember the name of the philosopher who said that science was one of the most zealous religions accepting no challenges to it. I don't agree with him, but it was an interesting argument.
They are totally mutually exclusive, religion believes in supernatural and science doesn't not. It doesn't make more mutually exclusive than that. For religion, science might be fine until science challenges the stereotype that religion is trying to impose on people, i.e. the creation of the world, evolution, how old is the earth.
I believe the earth is very old, that the Universe was created (yes created) by a big bang, and I not only believe evolution, but back when I was a teacher I taught it in a school.
Religion states it KNOWS something about the supernatural. Science accepts that it can say nothing about the supernatural.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks