LittleNipper wrote: Tell me, how was what Hitler accomplished for the Jews any different than what Oppenheimer accomplished for the Japanese --------- if not for considerations of sin?
Wow. You can't see the difference? You should talk to some people who survived Pearl Harbor and the Holocaust. Talk to the Chinese--and Russians and Americans--who were experimented on by Unit 731. Get your head out of the Bible, it's blinding you.
Maksutov, I am not always in a rush to agree with Nipper but in this case I think you and he are in agreement.B because the word sin does not first refer to real harm to other for you you may have missed Nippers point.
LittleNipper wrote: Whether you wish to admit it or not, you are being manipulated and controlled by science everyday. You are being told what to think, how to communicate, how to interact, and what is most important for man to do to continue living on this earth according to "scientific" studies/research.
One is either led by the Spiritual or the material. You are under the control of the material.
I thought this was a telling comment. Since I was young I understood science as a way of exploring and understanding the universe we live in. If one takes the time to learn about it it is no longer somebody telling you what to think but is instead a learning how to think an invitation to understand. Of course understanding the process takes more time and effort than listening to results and deciding if you like them or not.
I have sometimes grumbled that science on television seems a little long on the science says sort of presentation. There is too little this is how science came to see this.
Is this a failure of public school science education? A television program has time restraints which pressure the editor towards a science says form of presentation. Perhaps there are time limits for school in at least lower grades.
LittleNipper wrote: Tell me, how was what Hitler accomplished for the Jews any different than what Oppenheimer accomplished for the Japanese --------- if not for considerations of sin?
Wow. You can't see the difference? You should talk to some people who survived Pearl Harbor and the Holocaust. Talk to the Chinese--and Russians and Americans--who were experimented on by Unit 731. Get your head out of the Bible, it's blinding you.
What is the difference? Why is one bad and one good? Is is because Germany and Japan lost the war? That would be a scientific opinion (survival of the fittest). Scientists experiment on other animals. The US for years (years) exposed soldiers to radioactive fallout. Does it make sense to allow everyone to exist, or is it scientifically appropriate/prudent to relegate certain groups of living organisms for study to improve the welfare of the better qualified?
Right now you are being somewhat influenced by morals and ethics which in fact are particularly religious in nature and strikingly of a "Christian" leaning. You are the one who is hypocritical. You're the one who has no clue. If science is all there is, then let's play science. The Nazis did it to a large degree. They certainly closed both churches and schools that taught contrary ideology, they tried to eliminate people who were "different" than themselves.
Don't get me wrong. I firmly believe in morality, ethics, and standards; however, they are firmly rooted in a belief in GOD who considers everyone equally and answerable for what they do and do not do. Love thy neighbor is not a scientific term --- but, who is my neighbor might be. Jesus inferred it to be everyone and anyone one meets in his daily walk. I don't imagine science would give us that answer. I know that your opinion of GOD is blinding YOU of your own contradictions.
LittleNipper wrote: So, clearly science doesn't hold all the answers. And clearly the Bible does answer these questions for which science has no answers. And clearly the Bible is esteemed by Muslims, Buddhists, Hindi and Christians. The religious are hardly clueless; however, many get hung up on works ---- as do some scientists.
Science never claims to hold all the answers.
You need to be more specific in what you claim the Bible claims to answer.
Jews only claim part of the Old Testament. Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet. Buddhists have no personal God. Hindu's have thousands of manifestations of God. Christians are divided as to what they accept as Scripture. The Catholic Bible is much bigger that the Protestant one.
I never said the religious are clueless. About 40% of all American scientists are religious.
Science is only about what works. IE; If the most scientifically advanced device ever made, the computer you are using right now didn't work, you'd throw it out.
But remember, the computer is a Created, manufactured item. And the computer is still far removed from the human mind which created it. And you suppose that humans are the end result of random chance? I don't scientifically see how anyone can come to such a mistaken view of nature, unless they do not see GOD.
LittleNipper wrote:And you suppose that humans are the end result of random chance? I don't scientifically see how anyone can come to such a mistaken view of nature, unless they do not see GOD.
Mutation is random. Natural selection combined with mutation is not random. You might want to study a subject long enough to understand it before criticizing it.
There is a difference between randomly selecting letters sequencially expecting to get a copy of something written by Shakespeare and when failing, doing it over again from scratch vs getting to keep the correct letters each time through. The first method which is random does not work where the second method which is not random will produce results rather quickly.
And you are talking to the CCC who accepts the fact of evolution (everything has a common ancestor) but believes (I suspect) that god intervenes in perhaps both the selection process as well as the mutation process, which would not be random either.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
spotlight wrote:Mutation is random. Natural selection combined with mutation is not random. You might want to study a subject long enough to understand it before criticizing it.
There is a difference between randomly selecting letters sequencially expecting to get a copy of something written by Shakespeare and when failing, doing it over again from scratch vs getting to keep the correct letters each time through. The first method which is random does not work where the second method which is not random will produce results rather quickly.
And you are talking to the CCC who accepts the fact of evolution (everything has a common ancestor) but believes (I suspect) that god intervenes in perhaps both the selection process as well as the mutation process, which would not be random either.
LittleNipper wrote:And you suppose that humans are the end result of random chance? I don't scientifically see how anyone can come to such a mistaken view of nature, unless they do not see GOD.
Mutation is random. Natural selection combined with mutation is not random. You might want to study a subject long enough to understand it before criticizing it.
There is a difference between randomly selecting letters sequencially expecting to get a copy of something written by Shakespeare and when failing, doing it over again from scratch vs getting to keep the correct letters each time through. The first method which is random does not work where the second method which is not random will produce results rather quickly.
And you are talking to the CCC who accepts the fact of evolution (everything has a common ancestor) but believes (I suspect) that god intervenes in perhaps both the selection process as well as the mutation process, which would not be random either.
And I believe that man is a separate creation made of dust in the image of God. Man didn't evolve upward from lower lifeforms but is devolving further and further from God. And atheists and the society they are creating is proof of that transition. However, God has permitted man to create things so that they may cope with a dying planet and a Universe moving towards the brink.
LittleNipper wrote:And I believe that man is a separate creation made of dust in the image of God. Man didn't evolve upward from lower lifeforms but is devolving further and further from God. And atheists and the society they are creating is proof of that transition. However, God has permitted man to create things so that they may cope with a dying planet and a Universe moving towards the brink.
Where do you think endogenous retroviruses in our DNA came from?
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
LittleNipper wrote:And I believe that man is a separate creation made of dust in the image of God. Man didn't evolve upward from lower lifeforms but is devolving further and further from God. And atheists and the society they are creating is proof of that transition. However, God has permitted man to create things so that they may cope with a dying planet and a Universe moving towards the brink.
Where do you think endogenous retroviruses in our DNA came from?
That isn't in the Bible. Just the fantasies of men. Physics, biology, all vanities and deceptions invented by rebellious atheists who wanted to sin.
