I have this book and finished reading it about a month ago. Written by a man who was the head of the Human Genome Project, was an avowed atheist, and came to Christ and belief in the Christian narrative.
And no, I will not respond to your next question having to do with, "Well, give us the top five reasons Collins gives for his belief in God and in Jesus Christ and the Christian story."
Read the book.
Regards,
Mg
I’ve reported this link and run. Again. Yet again.
I note that this report has been closed by Dr Shades without any consequence for MG 2.0 being applied. So the above mustn’t amount to a link and run - in which case I’d like an explanation as to why it doesn’t (as I didn’t get an explanation when the report was closed).
For reference, the board rule states “Do not EVER "link-and-run." If you post a link to something, always explain what's at the other end of the link, why it's important, and what you hope other readers / viewers learn from it. RULE OF THUMB: If it's not worth your time to describe it, then it's not worth our time to click on it.”
MG posted a link, but did not explain what was at the other end. Nor why it is important, nor what he hoped other readers/viewers would learn from it. But ill be interested in why Dr Shades sees it differently.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
I’ve reported this link and run. Again. Yet again.
I note that this report has been closed by Dr Shades without any consequence for MG 2.0 being applied. So the above mustn’t amount to a link and run - in which case I’d like an explanation as to why it doesn’t (as I didn’t get an explanation when the report was closed).
For reference, the board rule states “Do not EVER "link-and-run." If you post a link to something, always explain what's at the other end of the link, why it's important, and what you hope other readers / viewers learn from it. RULE OF THUMB: If it's not worth your time to describe it, then it's not worth our time to click on it.”
MG posted a link, but did not explain what was at the other end. Nor why it is important, nor what he hoped other readers/viewers would learn from it. But ill be interested in why Dr Shades sees it differently.
Especially given that the link was posted as the total response to the question "What do you mean by natural processes?"
Not the first time he's dodged a question, though, nor the 100th. This is why I still think he's just here to disrupt. He throws what he thinks is a wrench in the works, when asked about it, his invariable response is something like:
"Read this whole book about the wrench.
It'll change your life like it changed mine, I promise. You can trust me because I'm a believer.
And don't ask me if I remember anything from the book because I don't. I'm just here to derail and disrupt do missionary work."
I wish those who post video links would write how long it is and give a summary of what is said to demonstrate the person posting the link has watched the video. If not done, a moderator would put something in red that they have 24 hours to fix the issue or it will be deleted. If this means rewriting a universal rule then rewrite it.
I would suppose natural processes refers to the structures and relationships and changes studied by physics and chemistry. Is there a mysterious point for special clarification?
MG is trying to say that God had sex with Mrs God and Adam and Eve were born as we were born, but he doesn’t want to say it out loud because of the obvious implications.
He’s also suggesting that his God is quite limited in what he can and cannot do. So, not a God then.
Question, your presented scenario sounds like Brigham Young views. I thought MG was thinking standard evolution but I guess he is not committing to that view. I guess he can point to incomplete knowledge for a reason not to commit.
I think that there is variety in possible views of what the idea of God refers to. I have wondered a few times if LDS ambiguity let's the idea fade into simply chief political police power
I wish those who post video links would write how long it is and give a summary of what is said to demonstrate the person posting the link has watched the video. If not done, a moderator would put something in red that they have 24 hours to fix the issue or it will be deleted. If this means rewriting a universal rule then rewrite it.
I wish those who post video links would write how long it is and give a summary of what is said to demonstrate the person posting the link has watched the video. If not done, a moderator would put something in red that they have 24 hours to fix the issue or it will be deleted. If this means rewriting a universal rule then rewrite it.
this
same for books and articles
I agree. Let's tighten up or continue to tighten up the posting practices of the population here. I have to justify each and every sentence when I am making my factual representations before the federal and supreme courts and any court for that matter. It isn't too much to ask a little explanation to videos or books or articles. If you haven't read or viewed the posted information, at least let us know. I don't care if people haven't done their homework. Post what you want but don't make it look like you are an expert when you aren't. Disclose. I don't want a devolution to just posting what someone quoting someone said. Hearsay is a legal rule because we want to see what the actual person said or observed unless there are certain guarantees of veracity. It exists to help to avoid rumor, the unfortunate political fuel.
Myth is misused by the powerful to subjugate the masses all too often.