in many debates between believers and non believers (nb), the nb uses evolution as some sort of proof to support the non existence of god.. i agree that evolution is a fact, however i feel that evolution is proof of some sort of benevolent original cause.. if i were to create an a.i.
, i would program into it the ability to self-refactor and evolve.. i would also randomly inject viruses into the program (evil) where the a.i.
would be forced to stretch its current capabilities & modify it's operating functions in order to get through the random virus, and continue living.. with a steady flow of different viruses, the a.i.
the model was absent of any ideas for or against a creator
Probably because it is inappropriate and unprofessional - not to mention controversial - to bring up religion in a science class. It speaks more to the culture of tolerance and political correctness than the scientific academia giving equal credence to a creator and evolution.
given: the prophecy is true.. what did jesus mean?
i have an app that alerts me of any earthquake all over the world.
since i got the app, it is one earthquake after another all over the world.
hi everyone.. thanks for the welcome a few days ago, it was nice to hear your support.. this is a pure speculation thread, but what do you think the next changes are going to be?.
will we see tything come into play?.
more evangelical style meetings?.
A nightly world news program on JW broadcasting. I think it's just a matter of time. Also, I think they're going to eventually stop printing one magazine each month and switch to printing a 32-page quarterly (once every 3 months). That way they can further reduce their printing costs while producing a product that looks more respectable and substantive.
so imagine the gb have a sudden attack of honesty and realize "crap, this whole thing is lies - we're not god's spokespeople at all !".
how do you dismantle a religion that has +8 million members in a responsible way?
you can't just publish a watchtower saying "we were wrong" because that would be irresponsible - you need to let people down gently, put people off gradually.
today's text -.
sunday, january 24. they collected the fine ones into containers, but the unsuitable they threw away.—matt.
13:48.. understanding the lesson of this illustration helps us to avoid being overly distraught or disappointed if a bible student or one of our children does not make the truth his own.
So I am labelled "unsuitable" based on my refusal to follow a cult ... which has misinterpreted the Bible
Speaking of which, their interpretation of this very text is a blatant misinterpretation. The text is obviously referring to the final judgment and destruction of the wicked and preservation of the righteous at the very end of "the system of things".
the scientific method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis, and then goes on to look for evidence, for or against support of the faith statement.. secular materialists often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did.. the manifesto for this self imposed mental ban seems to be summed up by geneticist richard lewontin:.
‘our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.
we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.. it is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
Regarding your Richard Lewontin quote. There is a reason why scientists are committed to materialism - it's testable and it works. You can't say the same for mythology and superstition.
Richard Lewontin was basically saying that we cannot give up sound Math and Science - no matter how counter-intuitive the conclusions - to accept fanciful, unproven and unprovable myths and superstitions. Reality always trumps make-believe.
the scientific method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis, and then goes on to look for evidence, for or against support of the faith statement.. secular materialists often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did.. the manifesto for this self imposed mental ban seems to be summed up by geneticist richard lewontin:.
‘our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.
we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.. it is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
The Scientific Method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis
Wrong. A hypothesis is not comparable to a faith statement.
A hypothesis is an idea put forward as a possible explanation for a phenomenon. The idea is then subjected to tests designed to disprove it.
A faith statement is a claim put forward as truth that must be accepted with confidence and not doubted. Attempting to disprove a faith claim is seen by theists as a bad thing and theists will often reject any evidence disproving a faith claim.
Sorry, but comparing a hypothesis to a faith claim is just ridiculous.
the scientific method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis, and then goes on to look for evidence, for or against support of the faith statement.. secular materialists often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did.. the manifesto for this self imposed mental ban seems to be summed up by geneticist richard lewontin:.
‘our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.
we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.. it is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
The Scientific Method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis
Wrong. A hypothesis is not comparable to a faith statement.
A hypothesis is an idea put forward as a possible explanation for a phenomenon. The idea is then subjected to tests designed to disprove it.
A
faith statement is a claim put forward as truth that must be accepted
with confidence and not doubted. Attempting to disprove a faith statement is
seen by theists as a bad thing and theists will often reject any
evidence disproving a faith statement. A faith statement is almost antithetical to a scientific hypothesis. Just about the only thing they have in common is that they're both statements.
Sorry, but comparing a hypothesis to a faith statement is just ridiculous.
the scientific method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis, and then goes on to look for evidence, for or against support of the faith statement.. secular materialists often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did.. the manifesto for this self imposed mental ban seems to be summed up by geneticist richard lewontin:.
‘our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.
we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.. it is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
The Scientific Method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis
Wrong. A hypothesis is not comparable to a faith statement.
A hypothesis is an idea put forward as a possible explanation for a phenomenon. The idea is then subjected to tests designed to disprove it.
A
faith statement is a claim put forward as truth that must be accepted
with confidence and not doubted. Attempting to disprove a faith
statement is
seen by theists as a bad thing and theists will often reject any
evidence disproving a faith statement. A faith statement is almost
antithetical to a scientific hypothesis. Just about the only thing they
have in common is that they're both statements.
Sorry, but comparing a hypothesis to a faith statement is just ridiculous.
"our perception of reality has more to do with what is going on in here (our brain) than what's going on out there (in the world).".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03g221y.
is it a dark square or a light square?
