PureBasic Forums - English

DoubleDutch wrote:Kale: Richard Dawkins loves arguing, he often twists his circumstantial evidence (as fact) to suit his view. He is a publicity seeker, possibly hoping to get another honorary doctorate - a bit silly for a real scientist. Dawkins has an almost religious obesssion with evolution, to the point of extremism. You really want to quote him?

I am a Catholic, but I also BELIEVE that evolution happened. I cannot say that I know evolution accounts for everything (unlike Dawkins) - as there are no physical facts.

Richard Dawkins is one of Britains great scientists, you should read his books to truly apreciate what he has to say. Also you claim to be a catholic and yet still believe in evolution? That puzzles me because evolution couldn't possible work in such as short life span that religious people give the Earth. God created the Earth 6,000 years ago? That's even after the first agricultural revolution of man. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution) Although it can not be proved for 100% fact, you can take a pretty good guess that the Earth is billions of years old by using careful observations and testing of the rocks its made from. As for evidence of evolution, for a moment forget your dedication to just believing in a god and just take a look at the living world around you, and think for a moment about how it all came to exist, nothing supernatural, nothing mystic, just very very slow gradual change, evidence is everywhere you look.

> That puzzles me because evolution couldn't possible work in such as short life span that religious people give the Earth.

did ever the idea cross your mind, that the expression "six days" could be a metaphor for six different periods of "creavolution"?

do you think any goatherd in 1800 B.C. would have listened to you if you
talked to him about "a amound of years more than the desert has grains"?

Kaeru Gaman wrote:> That puzzles me because evolution couldn't possible work in such as short life span that religious people give the Earth.

did ever the idea cross your mind, that the expression "six days" could be a metaphor for six different periods of "creavolution"?

do you think any goatherd in 1800 B.C. would have listened to you if you
talked to him about "a amound of years more than the desert has grains?"

eh?

what eh?
I think I made the point clear, what's not to understand there?

im no longer willing to argue with people who refuse to think for themselves.

did ever the idea cross your mind, that the expression "six days" could be a metaphor for six different periods of "creavolution"?

It could quite possibly do, but as soon as you start interperting parts of the bible other than their literal meaning you start to unravel the point of a sacred text. It's supposed to be correct, immutable and infallable.

If six days was really "six periods" than maybe Jesus feeding the 5000 really means Jesus "satisfied a small number of people with more food than we've actually written down".

It has to be the literal word or nothing, since that's just conjecture otherwise and there's even less proof for conjecture on holy text than the texts provide themselves.

Kale wrote:No no no.... we are not told to believe anything about science. We are told of what experiments have taken place and what has been observed. We are also told how to replicate these experiments for ourselves if we don't take their word for it. So we can always see for ourselves. Religion doesn't do that, you are told to believe everything at face value and thats that. Your not allowed to disagree.

I apparently met up with this topic late, but I do have something I wish to contribute concerning the above statement.

There doesn't exist any limitations of anyone's ability to find out for themselves whether a Religeon is true or not. I am a Christian. I did not become a Christian by accident. I did so deliberately. It was not forced upon me against my will. Jesus Christ said to those that were astonished at his doctrine, "...My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."

Jesus apparently wanted people to know by their own experience that what he said was true. I know that God has confirmed, taught, and revealed things to me. I know that is available to everyone. There have been numerous witnesses to that effect.

I agree with Kaeru Gaman concerning the need to respect the individuals who express their insights or views on various topics. If respect is not present than the words or examples which follow benefit neither the giver nor the receiver. I think that even applies in an "Off Topic."

im no longer willing to argue with people who refuse to think for themselves.

Arguing? I thought it was just a discussion...

I have listened to you rant and rave, insulting something I believe in. Saying I "claim to be a catholic", etc...

Then you insult Kaeru Gaman (a German) by saying "eh?" to something any reasonable person would be able to understand. How easy would it be for you to discuss things like this in a language other than English?

You should be ashamed of yourself!

Please don't reply with a load of cut'n'pastes - maybe YOU should start writing/thinking for yourself?

humm, well,
i think it's not a good idea to speak about god here.

here, we only have the same god who created the purebasic world and his communauty.

it's simpler this way.

And his only-begotten son Fr34k and the apostle Berikco.

exactely

wtf, no one bought my new religion Well, God related threads are so stupid they're
better left alone.

Have you noticed that as people get older so they get more religious?

Almost like they sense their own demise and are trying to find something tangible to help them through it.

Young people (not everyone but most I would think) are mostly not interested in religion at all.

Derek wrote: Young people (not everyone but most I would think) are mostly not interested in religion at all.

Stupid ones are, though..