Really? Did you read the article you posted? The fact that the DNA of Homo Neanderthalensis is incompatible with that of Homo Sapiens Sapiens proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were not “fully human”.I am skeptical about any claims that Neanderthals were anything but fully human.
Is your faith dependent on whether or not evolution theory is true?Yes, I did read the article. Apparently, the final conclusion cannot be drawn.
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/070802-neanderthals.html
As part of the ‘current dialogue’ being promoted on the internet, it is assumed, by some, that “final” answers are in, primarily to support evolutionary theory. In science, new discoveries can overturn certain ideas.
My faith is dependent on Jesus Christ. It seems to me that too much secular faith is dependent on science and evolutionary theory. That a clash of orthodoxies is occurring. That science has become a kind of god or dogma for some. Science, for some, is the equivalent of living in a pure and unsullied place where only the facts reside. But it is performed by fallible and manipulable human beings.Is your faith dependent on whether or not evolution theory is true?
So then, assuming you are correct, you aren’t able to tolerate other people’s faith?My faith is dependent on Jesus Christ. It seems to me that too much secular faith is dependent on science and evolutionary theory. That a clash of orthodoxies is occurring. That science has become a kind of god or dogma for some. Science, for some, is the equivalent of living in a pure and unsullied place where only the facts reside. But it is performed by fallible and manipulable human beings.
Peace,
Ed
I agree with you! And what may appear as facts can be nothing more than bad science made into “facts.” Any theory that denies divinity has nonsense at its heart.My faith is dependent on Jesus Christ. It seems to me that too much secular faith is dependent on science and evolutionary theory. That a clash of orthodoxies is occurring. That science has become a kind of god or dogma for some. Science, for some, is the equivalent of living in a pure and unsullied place where only the facts reside. But it is performed by fallible and manipulable human beings.
Peace,
Ed
Any theory that includes divinity is not science.I agree with you! And what may appear as facts can be nothing more than bad science made into “facts.” Any theory that denies divinity has nonsense at its heart.
Translation - any theory that does not include divinity is incomplete and lacking.Any theory that includes divinity is not science.
OK then, how do you propose to include divinity within science?Translation - any theory that does not include divinity is incomplete and lacking.
I strongly disagree with this statement. In the first place, no scientific theory denies divinity. No scientific theory has any business saying anything about divinity one way or the other. The supernatural is, by definition, outside the purview of science.I agree with you! And what may appear as facts can be nothing more than bad science made into “facts.” Any theory that denies divinity has nonsense at its heart.
Man is not the master of scientific reasoning, he is not the authority, this authority rests with God. Excluding God (the truth) from science make man the arbiter of truth. This cannot be, for God is the Creator.OK then, how do you propose to include divinity within science?
That is a bunch of babble. Just answer the question. How do we include God in science?Man is not the master of scientific reasoning, he is not the authority, this authority rests with God. Excluding God (the truth) from science make man the arbiter of truth. This cannot be, for God is the Creator.
So, how do we include God (who is the truth) in our reasoning? The things we see with science include some truth but not the whole truth.(that is by science’s own definition) How do we fill in the blanks? God gave us the answers in Revelation. We have to apply this to our reasoning.
We can reason observations in one of two ways:
Exclude God
or
Include God
If we exclude God (the truth) then what do we really have?
Babel - Yes indeed, our language is confused.That is a bunch of babble. Just answer the question. How do we include God in science?
You did not in any way answer the question. You can’t answer rationally and you know that.Babel - Yes indeed, our language is confused.
I answered it. Dwell on it - pick it up tomorrow.