Do you feel that this British writer speaks for 95% of scientists? What indications, besides their disagreement with you concerning evolution, has your research uncovered that they follow this belief that Huxley wrote about? This is an especially odd pronouncement about all these scientists since more than 50% of them profess a belief in God.
Actually, this writer is being honest and knows human nature better than most. The philosophy of meaninglessness is useful for "liberation" from morals, if that is what one desires.
Evolution is the core of the philosophy of meaninglessness, hence, a faith in evolution is an essential cause of immorality.Now, before everyone jumps on me about how I am persecuting your beliefs, I am using this as an illustration of the ridiculousness of Russ' statement. The people who instituted the Inquisition truly believed that it was a good way to save souls. They believed strongly in the saving power of Christ and the messages of Christ, yet they tortured people to get them to convert.
Assuming you believe the Bible to contain the truth, do you think that people applying Bible passages inappropriately has any bearing on the truth of the Bible?
The same with evolution. If the theory of evolution is true, people using it as an excuse to act immorally has no bearing on the truth of the theory.
If it were the cause of immorality, then people who believe in evolution could be shown to commit more crimes than those who don't. Is there a study that shows this?
Do you believe that over 50% of scientists profess a belief that the Bible is the Word of God?
You see, a belief in god means very little, so let's not confuse the issue with semantics.
No....but a percentage of those that believe in God do say the Bible is His Word. Now you are using semantics because what you mean by "Word of God" and what the scientists mean by it, may be different. What do you mean by "Word of God"?
Your resounding endorsement aside, what particular argument do you find especially compelling, from the full video? Present his argument here and we can discuss it.
There is no credible evidence supporting the self-assembly of amino acids into proteins. This is my position.
Nuh-uh...amino acids assemble into proteins every day.
If you believe there evidence to this end, please show us.
Sorry, I asked for your evidence first. Shifting the burden to me doesn't alleviate you from providing support for yours and Dr. Kenyon's claim.
No...I am saying that some of the individual chemical reactions are simple and would occur given the write conditions regardless of where those conditions occurred.
Would they occur in a lake?
what are the conditions in that lake?
Would they occur without intelligence intervening?
That depends on what you mean by "intelligence intervening". If someone sets up the conditions and then they combine, is that intelligence intervening? What if they set up a natural setting similar to something that exists in nature today and they assembled? Would that be intelligence intervening?
Why don't you just save us all some time and explain to us exactly how you believe a cell would self assemble.
I don't have the expertise in the fields regarding the origin of life. Neither do you. You like to use phraseology (self-assemble) to make it sound impossible. However, you know enough chemistry to understand the is not how reactions occur. Nothing "self assembles". Conditions become right for particular reactions to occur.
No it would not be fair to say that. I have expressed what I believe in the past and will not go into that here.
Please provide a link for us, because some of us on this forum have conversed that your have expressed contradicting belief systems.
I will not fuel an ad hominem attack on me.
We don't know if you're being dishonest or are just very confused.
I don't care if you think I am honest or not. You already think most dentists, doctors, and scientists are dishonest, so your assessment of me is of no value to me. Argue the evidence not the person.
Googled the name but there's not a whole lot on him. Who is he and why should I care what he said in a French Encyclopedia in 1937?
Again, it's not for you.
Right...I forgot your tendency to work the emotional appeal. Salesman all the way.
