The biological sciences are a bit more related than literature and music though. I am not surprised when evolutionists are quick to distance themselves from abiogenesis. I'm sure that if they discovered how to create life in a lab that every branch of the biological sciences would be all over them like a rash....
Umm it’s not though. Both music and literature speak to the human experience on an emotional level. Both seek to explore avenues of human life conveyed through emotionality. Both seek to shed light on socio- political issues in their own ways. Both seek to elevate or criticise the human animal, depending on the school of thought. I might not be a biologist but I’m a lit nerd. Come at me, bro.
So yeah, a scientist who utilises specific language will distinguish between two seperate subjects. You don’t see maths teachers try to teach chemistry in the same breath (although they do in fact overlap) even though both are pretty inextricably linked in the realms of academia. Given they are the from the same school of science and all.
It occurs to me that humans are destroying the planet and using science to facilitate it in one way or another.
I agree to an extent. Science also rather infamously advocates for preservation. Or are you unfamiliar with Sir David Attenborough who has literally made a career out of using biology to advance an environmental conservation message for the last 50 years?
I cannot separate creation from the Creator. Science pretty much wants the Creator to go away.....he is just an annoyance....but then, maybe they are an annoyance to him?
Science doesn’t seperate anything though. If you ascribe a deity to it, that’s your business. Science doesn’t care either way.?????
Deductive reasoning is a bit open to interpretation though isn't it? I imagine that I deduce things very differently to yourself? I could look at the same "evidence" and come to a completely different conclusion to you.
Well you come from a completely different thought process to me. I, a theist, don’t see things in black and white dichotomies. So I have no issue with blending science with religion. Because I don’t want God to accuse me of failing to utilise the brain he bestowed on me, in his infallible wisdom. But you’re free to whatever opinions you wish. I don’t care.
I have no problem at all with organization, as long as its based on provable facts and not assumptions. Anything prefaced by a "might have" or a "could have" is not a fact is it?
Science isn’t arrogant enough to not do such things. I would have thought humility would be something championed by Jesus followers, but whatever.
Science allows for errors at all times so choses the language they use for a reason
Its not a gap of logic as much as it is a gap in assumption.....how do you leap from adaptation (which is testable) to macro-evolution (which doesn't have any real evidence?) Are assumptions worth anything in science when they are not testable or fact based?
Because the line is virtually non existent. What’s the line specifically between macro and micro evolution in scientific terms?
Jesus Christ was so successful in his preaching methods that they have been adopted by businesses to flog their products. Marketing is a carefully crafted science, as is perception management....most people have no idea how much advertisers manipulate their purchasing buttons....or how easy it is to sway someone's opinion.
You can say the same of literally any religious prophet/leader. So what?
I have nothing against Jesus, he is within our religious prayers.
Pontificating? Nope...just expressing an opinion....as we all do. I can read and I can evaluate what I read as well as anyone.
You’re setting yourself up as this expert. I’m merely reacting.
I have wilfully and freely acknowledged my deficiencies when it comes to the sciences. You, meanwhile, seem to think yourself above the experts. So tell me why I should listen to you above someone who has dedicated a decade or more studying the phenomenon through the proper vetted channels?
As opposed to a layman who read something online? You are on the same level as a conspiracy theorist. I mean no offence, that’s just the way you’ve presented yourself to me of your own violation.
Who said you had to? I am simply highlighting what I have found in the literature....lots of conjecture and very little fact. I would have no issues at all if only they would just be honest about this theory. They teach it as established fact when it is no such thing. By the time kids get out of High School, they "believe" that evolution can't be questioned, so they don't.
You’re presenting yourself as such. This is a discussion, you are responsible for how you present yourself. I’m not responsible for how you are perceived by others. At least I hope not. Could you imagine??
No, picking my sources based on how easy they are to understand.
So......not academic then? That bodes well /s
