Is Jesus's "this generation will certainly not pass" valid grounds for scepticism?

[Skeptical Greg]

I have agreed with Darat that the division among Christians is dire.

Rampant maybe,

 

[theprestige]

I have agreed with Darat that the division among Christians is dire.

It's obviously not dire, though. Christianity is the most popular religion on the planet.

The division among Muslims, on the other hand, do occasionally seem pretty grim.

 

[sphenisc]

It's obviously not dire, though. Christianity is the most popular religion on the planet.

The division among Muslims, on the other hand, do occasionally seem pretty grim.

Islam is the second most popular, so by your own reasoning, not that dire.

 

[theprestige]

Islam is the second most popular, so by your own reasoning, not that dire.

Fair enough!

 

[acbytesla]

Based on my current flawed and limited understanding, Darwinian evolution seems the safest bet.

Why do you keep referring to it as Darwinian? Seriously? It doesn't offer clarity and makes you look foolish. Darwinian could mean survival of the fittest. It could be pangenesis. It could be a lot of things, Biology isn't a cult of personality. It's not a religion. The Origin of the Species is not a Bible. Darwin was not a prophet. Neither was Mendel.

If you think that "Natural Selection" is not complete and Modern Synthesis offers a better explanation for evolution. Great, argue that.

 

[Poem]

Why do you keep referring to it as Darwinian? Seriously? It doesn't offer clarity and makes you look foolish.

Are you going to say the same to Michael Ruse - author of Darwinism and Its Discontents and to Richard Dawkins - for his video entitled Darwinism v. Creationism?

Is Denis Noble also foolish for declaring that 'Neo-Darwinism is dead'?

Darwinian could mean survival of the fittest.

'Survival of the fittest' was coined by Herbert Spencer.

It could be pangenesis.

According to Denis Noble, Darwin was actually right about gemmules - now called exosomes. He categorically states that the Weismann Barrier is wrong.

It could be a lot of things, Biology isn't a cult of personality. It's not a religion. The Origin of the Species is not a Bible. Darwin was not a prophet. Neither was Mendel.

No idea why you are stating this.

If you think that "Natural Selection" is not complete and Modern Synthesis offers a better explanation for evolution. Great, argue that.

I think what is clear is that evolutionary theory is incomplete.

 

[steenkh]

I think what is clear is that evolutionary theory is incomplete.

All scientific theories are incomplete. Only math has absolutes that are complete.

 

[Poem]

All scientific theories are incomplete. Only math has absolutes that are complete.

There's a few posts of yours that I'm behind on....I'll some back soon as I can.

 

[Darat]

Are you going to say the same to Michael Ruse - author of Darwinism and Its Discontents and to Richard Dawkins - for his video entitled Darwinism v. Creationism?

Is Denis Noble also foolish for declaring that 'Neo-Darwinism is dead'?

'Survival of the fittest' was coined by Herbert Spencer.

According to Denis Noble, Darwin was actually right about gemmules - now called exosomes. He categorically states that the Weismann Barrier is wrong.

No idea why you are stating this.

I think what is clear is that evolutionary theory is incomplete.

And? What point are you trying to make in regard to the OP?

 

[steenkh]

There's a few posts of yours that I'm behind on....I'll some back soon as I can.

You don’t need to. It is not important in relation to the OP.

 

[Poem]

And? What point are you trying to make in regard to the OP?

I was answering someone's post. - wasn't that obvious?

 

[Poem]

What we can say however is the god most if not all Christian claim exists doesn’t because the evidence is against it. For example we know that humans weren’t created instantly and singularity .

And? What point are you trying to make in regard to the OP?

 

[acbytesla]

Are you going to say the same to Michael Ruse - author of Darwinism and Its Discontents and to Richard Dawkins - for his video entitled Darwinism v. Creationism?

Is Denis Noble also foolish for declaring that 'Neo-Darwinism is dead'?

'Survival of the fittest' was coined by Herbert Spencer.

According to Denis Noble, Darwin was actually right about gemmules - now called exosomes. He categorically states that the Weismann Barrier is wrong.

No idea why you are stating this.

I think what is clear is that evolutionary theory is incomplete.

Wow! I don't care. You keep pushing Darwin. I don't care about the people. I care about science. Darwin isn't a scientific idea. It's Relativity, not Einsteinian.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Einsteinism?

 

[Poem]

Wow! I don't care. You keep pushing Darwin. I don't care about the people. I care about science. Darwin isn't a scientific idea. It's Relativity, not Einsteinian.

You don't care because you can't and didn't answer what I said.

Perhaps it's time to stop suggesting I and others look 'foolish' or 'moronic'.

 

[acbytesla]

You don't care because you can't and didn't answer what I said.

Perhaps it's time to stop suggesting I and others look 'foolish' or 'moronic'.

No. Your language still looks dishonest and moronic. I'm not addressing whether others also do.

 

[Poem]

No. Your language still looks dishonest and moronic. I'm not addressing whether others also do.

I responded and you didn't and clearly can't answer.

Have you forgotten that you used 'moronic' with regard to Francis Collins?

 

[acbytesla]

I responded and you didn't and clearly can't answer.

Have you forgotten that you used 'moronic' with regard to Francis Collins?

Yes.

His reasons for his religiosity do not reflect the scientific rigor that he applies to any other idea. That is moronic. BTW, you can be very intelligent and still have ideas that are wrong and even moronic. That applies to Tesla, Einstein, Newton, Collins, Musk and others. And if you believe that any of us are immune to wrong headed and moronic ideas wake up.

 

[theprestige]

Are you going to say the same to Michael Ruse - author of Darwinism and Its Discontents and to Richard Dawkins - for his video entitled Darwinism v. Creationism?

Is Denis Noble also foolish for declaring that 'Neo-Darwinism is dead'?

I don't care about those guys. I want to know why do you keep referring to it as Darwinian, here in this thread?

Maybe those guys are making sensical mentions of Darwinism in other contexts. You're not those guys, and this isn't those contexts.

Once again you hide behind rhetorical questions, rather than addressing points with complete arguments.

What conclusion are you trying to advance, with your repeated use of terms like "Darwinism" and "Darwinian"? Can you please just skip to the part where you tell us what that conclusion is?

 

[porch]

And you have?

Nature is a weird website? The biologists featured there would disagree.

I have said it a number of times...I'd rather not keep repeating.

I have agreed with Darat that the division among Christians is dire.

That is right - it's not contradicting.

I have already discussed this in previous posts. I infer that you haven't been following.

The Nature Institute is weird. The Third Way is weird.

The division among Christians is dire to what? Or whom? And is that what Darat said, that it's dire?

I have been paying attention. The OP asks a question about how Christians reconcile a particular passage from the gospels. Someone pointed out to you that different Christians have different answers. And then you asked, "Wouldn't this only be significant if it were peculiar to Christianity?" The answer to that question is no. It is entirely significant to the OP question whether it is peculiar to Christianity or not. And so, the whole Darwin thing that you brought up in that post is just a big distraction.

To me, it looks sort of like this imaginary discussion -

Hankel: What colour are horses?
Grestle: Horses are different colours.
H: Wouldn't that only be significant if it were peculiar to horses? Cars are different colours, you know.
G: What is the point of this comparison?
H: Well, cars and horses are both ways that people can travel.
G: Uh, okay, sure. But what are you getting at?
H: I just told you! I was responding to your question! *meow* *hiss*

Anyhow, I hope this isn't one of those threads that starts off as if it's a question about one thing, but it turns out it's really a big Be It Resolved That about something else, but it takes a long, long-assed time to find out, and in the end there isn't any really meaty argument for anyone to chew on anyhow. You'd be surprised, it's happened around these parts before.