"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
Oh come on. He looks more like Ronald Reagan than George Bush. Here, take a closer look:touchingcloth wrote:I had to look at that picture a few times before managing to convince myself that the guy holding the puppet isn't George Bush.
You are so bad touching cloth. Bad bad man. haha...Wait, isn't that a young Obama?touchingcloth wrote:He just loves his cake - I think the bloke behind him has his eye on a slice too.
!! It does look like that!Byblos wrote:Wait, isn't that a young Obama?touchingcloth wrote:He just loves his cake - I think the bloke behind him has his eye on a slice too.
Asking for the most convincing evidence for evolution is like asking which of the 100+ triangular sections of the Gateway Arch is the most important. A flaw in any one section and the entire structure collapses.derrick09 wrote: What are your most convincing, favorite, or top evidences or arguements for macro evolution?
I'd go further than that. Not just a bunny, not just the Cambrian, but any clearly mammalian feature in any stratum below the Triassic would be a huge blow to the theory.IgoFan wrote: All of evolution's "triangular sections" are convincing, one of which is that evolution must, and does, consistently make predictions that new evidence supports. For example, just one bunny fossil in the Cambrian strata would invalidate evolution. In contrast, by definition, any new evidence becomes retroactively consistent with creationism. For example, creationism would welcome a human fossil find in the Cambrian strata with "I told you so!" Creationism is NOT falsifiable.
ageofknowledge wrote:Like McCullough's study which showed that individuals low in religiosity are more likely to have a disaffected, apathetic, cynical, and ambitionless personality even among intellectually gifted people. And since atheists are more likely to engage in infidelity which correlates with psychoticism, low agreeableness, and low conscientiousness I can only speculate where atheists think evolution will be taking them.
Since you seem easily amused "science" you should get a kick out of where evolution is taking you.
McCullough, M., J. Tsang, & S. Brion (2003). Personality traits in adolescence as predictors of religiousness in early adulthood: Findings from the Terman Longitudinal Study. Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 29, 980-91.
God must really hate Rush Limbaugh...ageofknowledge wrote:A simple explanation. The West is long over due for sweeping revival. As a collection of post Christian nations that were damaged by the ammorality and immorality of secularists, you can see the results of this modern nominal Christianity/Catholicism in the lifestyles of their respective populations (ex: the divorce rate of the church is the same as the secular society outside it despite the fact that God hates divorce and doesn't approve of it as the scripture teaches).
Like the one you referred to.
The results listed in that article are a direct result of secularism upon these society. Once vibrant Christian nations impacted into a backslidden state conforming to the ammorality and immorality of godless secularism and the practices of secular non-Christians upon their societies. Then a godless secularist comes along and writes a journal article about what they see fully knowing they themself are the reason for it. The fox blaming the chickens.
And we know where yours' do:
But don't worry godless secularists, you're not fooling any authentic Christians with your false correlations, we know where your heart lies:
As you already know, God hates evil and judges it. He loves people but if people reject God and continue in evil then He must judge them as well for it. That means you derwood. Going on about Rush Limbaugh won't help you on that day.derwood wrote:God must really hate Rush Limbaugh...
derwood wrote:And we know where yours' do:
WOW! I opened that, expecting to read something informative. I don't find these 'studies' all that conclusive because, frankly, the inconsistency in the methods are questionable. Why aren't the methods used for it, explained in the article? How do you pull this from one study?derwood wrote:ageofknowledge wrote:Like McCullough's study which showed that individuals low in religiosity are more likely to have a disaffected, apathetic, cynical, and ambitionless personality even among intellectually gifted people. And since atheists are more likely to engage in infidelity which correlates with psychoticism, low agreeableness, and low conscientiousness I can only speculate where atheists think evolution will be taking them.
Since you seem easily amused "science" you should get a kick out of where evolution is taking you.
McCullough, M., J. Tsang, & S. Brion (2003). Personality traits in adolescence as predictors of religiousness in early adulthood: Findings from the Terman Longitudinal Study. Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 29, 980-91.
Yeah, it is a a poser:
Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'
Or, even the bold remark at the end:According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.
Really now? All of this from one study? You can tell the inexperience, and conflation of terms in the writer's rhetoric; ambiguous words like religion, conservative, liberal? The author doesn't even bother to define what religion means; if it's a belief in God, as hinted, then the term religion has just opened the door for many variables.“The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”