Belief in the Bible is the core of the philosophy of the Inquisition, hence, a faith in the Bible is an essential cause of religious torture.
Question: Do you even know who conducted the inquisition?
If you do, you will realize that it was not conducted by Christians.
Nevertheless, I could use the same argument (except in this case it would be valid) to demonstrate that evolution facilitated this behavior:
Dahmer speaks on evolution:
http://urlbam.com/ha/M000cThe people who instituted the Inquisition truly believed that it was a good way to save souls.
No, they did not.
Just as the just-passed "stimulus" bill was touted as a bill to stimulate the economy, those who are passing it know better, and their real agenda has nothing to do with stimulating the economy.
The same is true of the inquisition. There were ulterior motives being executed by this "special interest" group, not Christians.
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?
Certainly not.
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.
True, but the consequences of the promotion of evolution fall in your hands.
Do you accept this responsibility?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?
We could draw some useful data into this discussion.
Many more Democrats believe in evolution than do Republicans.
Number of States won by:
Democrats: 19
Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by:
Democrats: 580,000
Republicans: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Democrats: 127 million
Republicans: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2
Republicans: 2.1
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"?
You claim to be a Christian yet you don't know what "Word of God" means?
I can't help but to feel that you're intentionally delaying the answer in order to divert the subject.
By "Word of God" I mean that God authored the Bible through prophets.
Nuh-uh...amino acids assemble into proteins every day.
Again, I can't help but to believe that you're playing word games.
The term I used was "self-assembly". My statement stands, unless, of course, you can provide evidence that amino acids self-assemble into proteins.
My statement:
"There is no credible evidence supporting the self-assembly of amino acids into proteins."Reference:
http://urlbam.com/ha/M0029Sorry, 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.
How am I supposed to prove a negative?
For now, I'm relying on Dr. Kenyon's professional opinion in this discussion.
Reference:
http://urlbam.com/ha/M0029What evidence can you offer supporting your belief that amino acids self-assemble into proteins?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.
Conditions do indeed change, but the rules of chemistry do not.
My position all along has been that there are woefully insufficient chemical binding rules to facilitate the formation of highly-complex, symmetrical, sexual (different organisms having perfectly compatible reproductive systems), self-replicating machines from forming by themselves.
My position continues to express that such a process has never been observed and is therefore accepted by faith, and is therefore a religion.
If you wish to believe that atoms self-assemble into human bodies (given the right conditions), you are free to do so. I personally find that such a belief is an affront to the integrity of science.
You might offer what you believe the "right conditions" are.
I will not fuel an ad hominem attack on me.
There are no victims here.
You have contradicted yourself and considering that all the other evolutionists that have argued on this forum have lied about their beliefs and/or identity, we are wondering if you are doing the same.
This is a fair request. It is not an attack of any kind.
In fact, if you just answer the question, there would most certainly be no "fuel for an attack", unless of course, you provide the "fuel".
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.
Strawman alert!
No, I don't think that most dentists, doctors, and scientists are dishonest. I have clearly told you that previously.
In this, you are either being dishonest or having memory issues. It's not fair to misquote me.
If it's an accident, I forgive you.
Linear, I don't mind debating with you, but I do insist in seeing some evidence to support your assertion that amino acids self-assemble into proteins, regardless of the conditions.
Feel free to describe the conditions for us if you like. I'm listening.
