It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Cosmic911
a reply to: spygeek
If you gleaned the idea of what I was conveying, you'd recognize the quote was implicitly relevant, and no way taken out of context. You fail to recognize that because you responded to the thread with your own biased opinion on the subject matter.
originally posted by: Prezbo369
originally posted by: Cosmic911
a reply to: spygeek
If you gleaned the idea of what I was conveying, you'd recognize the quote was implicitly relevant, and no way taken out of context. You fail to recognize that because you responded to the thread with your own biased opinion on the subject matter.
After reading your sig and noticing your use of the word 'Darwinism' i'm pretty sure you're guilty of the above just as much as anyone else.
The Bible must not be taken literally, but should be read allegorically. Furthermore, to many scientists, their discoveries may not be that different from religious revelations. Science advancements may even draw scientists closer to religion.
Brian Greene
"The universe is incredibly wondrous, incredibly beautiful, and it fills me with a sense that there is some underlying explanation that we have yet to fully understand," he said. "If someone wants to place the word God on those collections of words, it's OK with me."
originally posted by: Cosmic911
a reply to: Cosmic911
The ‘molecules-to-man’ theory of evolution can be problematic to creationists, not all evolution. This is the theory that rejects any participation by God; and it is this theory that is incompatible with Christianity. This is one of the absolutes that prevents one theory from disseminating with the other to form a more scientifically-palatable theory for proponents of creationism.
You do know that there are laws of nature that we still don't know about?
That some laws have happened only once or twice since the beginning of time?
originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Teikiatsu
www.iep.utm.edu...
Read up and it was I believe Newton that talked about them as universal first.
Which is to mean there is not separate laws on earth and in space, since space was seen as the heavens long ago.
And because of that thought to not work like things do on earth.