Search results

Religion is an explanation of how not to understand.

Problem in directly addressing my query as indicated by your response probably comes about because I am reading and reading in context what you said. Apparently though you'd now rather I "interpret". You critisized others for not understanding the very subject of socialism yet you seem to...

Right so as to be clear then, by saying (your words) "Socialism is indeed faithless, "... is what you you mean to say, Socialism is indeed faithless except when it is indeed not faithless, as is the case with religious socialism . Is that correct. If so could you please explain how...

Could you please explain how your statement ... "Socialism is indeed faithless, ".... isn't falling into your own description of an ignorance of socialism? I'm referring to the well established Christian Socialism movement? I'm enquiring as you also remarked...." But surely to be able to...

The <strike>protestant reformation</strike> growth of the modern secular state ... was the main contribution to the founding of the US. Roman Catholic Church tied Church and State together. Ultimate socialism where everyone jointly and severally belonged to God and State. 16th century...

Just what is your problem? Now you're posting stuff as evidence which confirms the points I raised, whilst at the same time saying I'm wrong.. What on earth has made you so animated that now you can't even acknowledge the vid FreeThinker gave is relevant ? The thread title states "modern...

Now you've decided for no reason to go from debatable to No, and without any longer involving scientists. That's what I mean. You seem to want to dim the light. But you would say black and white thinking, if you hadn't grasped the inevitable result from making the argument you did...

Well ok, just don't tell scientists in the Human Genome Project that the evidence coming from DNA is not developing the discipline of genetic anthropology. You want to think maybe a bit harder about what you want to argue about before you post. You've said "..out of Africa and evolving "...

No. If you do that then it is equally debatable that the human status can be considered as living, or not living. The terms biology and biochemistry are to all intents and purposes interchangeable. Biochemists study chemical transformations in living organisms. The bio part is the clue. By...

Autosomal DNA provides a broad picture of an individual's ancestors, not the trail of specific ancestry. The vid is relevent. Genetic anthropology based on DNA indicates the one common female ancestor living in Africa is shared by all modern humans.

Yet no scientists study the particular workings of viruses in any discipline outside of biology. Geology won't help you understand how a virus actually evolves though it does tell you about rocks. That's somewhat of a bright line in itself.

It's semantics only when you start messing with semantics otherwise they're fitting in the realms of biology ( you know...bios – life , ology as in the study of). Of course it's clear and reasonable to say viruses are living things. They're biological. They fit the criteria. You start...

Did you not bother reading my explanation at all? Whether or not you think it's right or wrong your question above suggests you didn't even notice it. If you consider life is functioning molecular biology that responds through replication to its environment as described by Darwin / evolution...

What utter bunkum. Judaism's religious text probably contains even more law governing the ownership and management of slaves and condoning barbaric practices than the Old Testament based on it. It took thousands of years for societies to force out the religious theocracy and the...

Quite true. I have been arguing with facts, with quotes and with science in all our discussions and it has not advised you. That's exactly your problem in a nutshell. No. There is factual evidence that does help establish proof to whether life evolved from non life. I realize putting...

Point taken, but it still has no bearing on the fact that Darwin does not deal with origins of life which you said, 'does not sound right'. If you want to deal with origin of species, evolutionary development of species, taxonomic group of organisms, or in other words, all known living...

Mountains don't self replicate. Prions do. Seriously what are you tryin to suggest ? That there is no fundemental difference between a rock and a commodity trader? ....on second thoughts.:D

You guys should really stop telling other people what they do and do not do.

Are you saying in essence some of the same physics and chemistry can be in play on both a rock and a living organism. Then I agree. Yes they can and are so. I'm not sure though why don't see a bright line between the two? Do you not differentiate between living and non-living entities...

"Your quote was entertaining now that science is proving you wrong about evolution..." "My point is now science realizes it has no proof that life evolved from non life" Evolution is nothing to do with life from non life, you were already advised of that earlier. Specific Nobel prize...