DNA as a language

  • Thread starter Thread starter coolduude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bschneid said:
I do not believe YEC or ID to be considered reasonable. I do not fall into the first two categories but rather the latter. Don’t know what you mean by "popping up everywhere’? But I guess that’s not important because I do not bieleive in intelligent design.

The multiple universe theory and the self contained universe theories both seemed to be formed to counter the “god created the universe” argument. Instead of answering questions, these responses make the universe question infinitely more complicated. It’s kind of like seeing human footprint and then suggesting an alien wearing shoes made it. Dawkins said that God is too “complicated” of a solution for the answer to the beginning of the universe. On the contrary, by definition God is the least complicated answer seeing as how he is a single entity.

We all know you secretly want to be converted! Why else would you spend so much time on a Catholic website 🙂
Click to expand...
Neil Tyson seems to agree with Dawkins.Can I post a link to the discussion on the topic? If so, I will. If not, one can find it if they wish to.
 
Neil Tyson seems to agree with Dawkins.Can I post a link to the discussion on the topic? If so, I will. If not, one can find it if they wish to.
Click to expand...
And Einstein agrees with me? I am not surprised another atheist shares the same opinion as Dawkins. Go ahead post away.
 
bschneid said:
And Einstein agrees with me? I am not surprised another atheist shares the same opinion as Dawkins. Go ahead post away.
Click to expand...
Is Tyson an athiest?

Or a scientist?

If he is a scientist, he will always correct his view and willingly do so upon new evidence.

Einstein has been so taken out of context and, pardon the pun not relevant here.
 
I do not know all the forum rules because I am new here so I would be careful about posting that because it seems that is a sensitive issue. Hahahaha I was not putting you in a corner I was just asking for it out of curiosity. No need to get so dramatic 😃

When you first suggested Neil Tyson I think I misread your intentions as to why you were including him in the argument. So my response with Einstein would be a mistake on my part. Neil Tyson definitely has the scientific credentials, but when he gives presentations with Richard Dawkins about religion I tend to wonder what his intentions are. Dawkins is also a scientist, but if you see the obvious hatred coming from his last novel I do not believe the pursuit of truth is his top priority. Just because someone is considered “a scientist” does not mean they are willing to accept new ideas. Especially on a topic like this where evidence is more along the line of theories as opposed cold hard facts. Generally speaking people do not like to be wrong.
 
bschneid said:
I do not know all the forum rules because I am new here so I would be careful about posting that because it seems that is a sensitive issue. Hahahaha I was not putting you in a corner I was just asking for it out of curiosity. No need to get so dramatic 😃

When you first suggested Neil Tyson I think I misread your intentions as to why you were including him in the argument. So my response with Einstein would be a mistake on my part. Neil Tyson definitely has the scientific credentials, but when he gives presentations with Richard Dawkins about religion I tend to wonder what his intentions are. Dawkins is also a scientist, but if you see the obvious hatred coming from his last novel I do not believe the pursuit of truth is his top priority. Just because someone is considered “a scientist” does not mean they are willing to accept new ideas. Especially on a topic like this where evidence is more along the line of theories as opposed cold hard facts. Generally speaking people do not like to be wrong.
Click to expand...
People who are not open to being wrong should get out of the way of science. A scientist has no dogma to defend. A scientist has to publish their studies even if they contradict their predections.
A scientist looks for and seeks truth constantly.
 
bschneid said:
We all know you secretly want to be converted! Why else would you spend so much time on a Catholic website 🙂
Click to expand...
No, it is all part of a secret Buddhist plot to get the Dalai Lama elected pope and to reinstate (yes, that is reinstate) the Buddha as a Catholic saint. 🙂

rossum

P.S. If you are still puzzled research SS Barlaam and Josaphat.
 
People who are not open to being wrong should get out of the way of science. A scientist has no dogma to defend. A scientist has to publish their studies even if they contradict their predections.
A scientist looks for and seeks truth constantly.
Click to expand...
I agree with you and I hope this would be the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top