I would say for example that GOD never played a part in your creation. But the question for you is this. When you die, and appear before GOD, can you still deny GOD? What if your sentence is eternal death? Like a man being executed, you forfeited your chance, simply by turning GOD down.Yupā¦
Letās just insert god for everything we donāt know How it works. Letās start with cell phones.
My two daughters both were top students both in high school and in college. But I was guiding both. What if they had to deal with a non interested teacher who would have influenced them. I had a few teachers like that.I got A's in History and Trig.I didn't do well in courses that I didn't like however (English Literature).
Parents are so important. My wife got custody of our two kids in the divorce. She then destroyed them body and soul. She then destroyed herself.
My first wife kept custody of her 2 children but I got custody of our Daughter. My kid excelled in school. Both of hers were kicked out of high school and had to get a GE to pass high school. After they were away from her, they both did much better. She died several years ago.
Well, it is pretty hard to disagree with the second statement, at least.
My son and daughter still have the self-destructive attitudes of their mother, who drank herself to death a few years ago. My son also has a drinking problem. My daughter is unwilling to develop a career or even a steady job and relies on various welfare programs for survival. She is a 'counterculturist' who believes that any traditional behavior is a 'sellout' to her chosen way of life. It's her way of channeling her mother cynicism.
We've already gotten down to three nucleotides linking the bacteria, Staphylococcus aureus in post #50. Ignoring that bacteria while adding another one is noted, even though we've yet to mention on this thread cyanophages and bacteriophages such as S7.
Your mistake is to take the theologian's bait, and this bait was developed at least as early as the Neolithic: tomb rituals and the exploitation of the fundamental illusion of Man of not being dead once we already are.
You hide within the nuclear conundrum, though the second statement is a paranoiac's expression that the cup is always already half emp-ty, arrogantly disregarding what high IQs have (also given [italics]) to the world.
Easy question for any agnostic to answer. I donāt know. But unlike the creationist, Iām not making up shit in the mean time. We have a long history of assigning ā godsā to unknowns, like the stars, the tides and even the earth and gravity. One by one, science replaced the god with better understanding. Whatās hilarious is, you believe in a god but as yet, you have no idea what version it is out of the half dozen or so that occupy your science denial minds.
Exactly,
newrepublic.com
I have a dozen books on this subject and one comes to mind now. Origins Reconsidered by Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin. Leakey's parents were famous for research of human origins. He also was as he got older. He tells of Baboons in a troop that he tracked and studied a lot. And goes into detail of them mating, eating and fighting. Very interesting book.We excerpted for Behe, above. So when Broocks and Hedin came to town to evangelize (OP), they weren't far from Coyne at the U. of Chicago (post #130). Coyne mentions IDer Behe's serious misgivings and Fry mentions both, here:
'The probability that "irreducibly complex systems" could have arisen "as an integrated unit in one fell swoop" is nil. Denying the possibility of an alternate natural mechanism that could have accomplish such a feat and relying on an analogy with the power of intelligent agents, Behe concluded that these systems had to result from the action of an intelligent designer.
Space will not allow me to dwell on the various mechanisms that could have led to the natural evolution of functional systems of interdependent parts, brought forth in the literature by evolutionary biologists and cell biologists (see, among many, Coyne 2006 Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name, in Intelligent Thought, Ed. J. Brockman, pp. 3-23, New York: Vintage Books; Gishlick 2004; Miller 1999; Musgrave 2004).'
(Fry, op. cit.)
Unsurprisingly, when hunting for the original version of Coyne's paper cliff noted by Nick Stroebel (post #130), two of Coyne's sources for the original article have been scrubbed:
'This article is not available online.'The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name
Because of copyright issues, this article is not available online. Subscribers can download it in PDF format here.
I never deny science.
In order to believe in ā godā, you have to tell us which god you mean.
Thatās pretty arrogant. Youāre speaking for god ?
The only GOD. Sorry if you think that. I don't know to the question.
