Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
he doesn't understand that the items we have that look like "dogma" are open ended. Like the scientific method, It doesn't tell us what we have to believe.
Here is my philosophy on the topic. Scientists and believers of science are ok when you call 'it' nature or evolution, but when you use the word, God or heaven forbid, Creator. They run amock.
What really is the difference between the 2 though? And their function and what I believe and what they believe the Creator and nature/evolution does/did? NOTHING! I believe they are one and the same. And it is the term you use that really creates this never ending debate between my Creator and their 'nature'/evolution.
It is simply the study of biological change over time.
The difference is as plain as the nose on your face.
I am not accustomed to running into people who are just so brazenly obtuse about the difference between a belief system vs. understanding and acknowledging empirical evidence.
I am so thankful that don't know anyone like this. I am just amazed at how much I come across it here in this forum and here we are 15% of the way into the 21 Century and you still find people like this. Amazing is all I can say.
Here is my philosophy on the topic. Scientists and believers of science are ok when you call 'it' nature or evolution, but when you use the word, God or heaven forbid, Creator. They run amock.
What really is the difference between the 2 though? And their function and what I believe and what they believe the Creator and nature/evolution does/did? NOTHING! I believe they are one and the same. And it is the term you use that really creates this never ending debate between my Creator and their 'nature'/evolution.
Ugh.
Stupid really.
Yep. Both views are pretty much equivalent. God did it vs. Nature (or genes if you want) did it.
It is simply the study of biological change over time.
The difference is as plain as the nose on your face.
Sorry!
Oh! Is that all it is? Observing change. Fine with me. I observe it every moment of every day on my life. So did the Taoists and Heraclitus. No big deal then. Ok with me.
wrong. An honest Scientists is fine with being proven wrong. That means we learnt something.
your explanation satisfies you because that's what you need. I see it in every forum. Atheist self stroking each other and theist doing it too. then there is the personal stokers that just make up stuff to suit themselves. I, and a few others, are not really "teamed up" with people to make us feel better. We need no such gratification, we only need to look as best we can without making stuff up.
There is no such thing as an honest scientist or dishonest scientist. They are just paid to do a job and get the results their employer wants. It's very easy to accomplish since it's so incredibly easy to fudge and there is basically no one really watching.
What is difficult is getting the funds to pay one's wages since there are so many competing for the same finite funds. Friends of mine finally quit the whole profession because they couldn't stomach it anymore. Different strokes for different folks.
I see advertising one's scientific ignorance isn't confined to the Religion forum.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
