Truth hurts eh?
Google wrote......
"A comprehensive study by Harvard University professor Robert Putnam found that religious people are more charitable than their irreligious counterparts".
The cambrian explosion
- Thread starter gasbanni
- Start date
Truth hurts eh?
Google wrote......
"A comprehensive study by Harvard University professor Robert Putnam found that religious people are more charitable than their irreligious counterparts".
Sponsored Links
Truth hurts eh?
Google wrote......
"A comprehensive study by Harvard University professor Robert Putnam found that religious people are more charitable than their irreligious counterparts".
you believe every "comprehensive study" ever made I suppose?
you will have to do better than that mate
how about this study, do you believe this one?
http://www.livescience.com/20005-atheists-motivated-compassion.html
http://www.livescience.com/20005-atheists-motivated-compassion.html
Sponsored Links
What one's beliefs motivate one to do has no bearing whatsoever on the veracity of those beliefs.
I could say that those who believe in Santa or the Tooth Fairy do a lot of good work, but that doesn't mean that their belief is correct.
( In the same way that abusive clergy mean that their religion is incorrect)
Back to the OP - the clip just doesn't hold up to scrutiny and as someone said earlier , just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean there is no explanation
I could say that those who believe in Santa or the Tooth Fairy do a lot of good work, but that doesn't mean that their belief is correct.
( In the same way that abusive clergy mean that their religion is incorrect)
Back to the OP - the clip just doesn't hold up to scrutiny and as someone said earlier , just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean there is no explanation
So you are of the belief that the only people that actually put their hand in their pocket and give to charity are religious?
that's an awfully narrow minded and bigoted view Norcon
that's an awfully narrow minded and bigoted view Norcon
$30b. Bet that eases the guilt.
G
GasBod
[quote="Norcon"
Truth hurts eh?
Google wrote......
"A comprehensive study by Harvard University professor Robert Putnam found that religious people are more charitable than their irreligious counterparts".[/quote]
Does that include donations to Peter Poppoff ?
Truth hurts eh?
Google wrote......
"A comprehensive study by Harvard University professor Robert Putnam found that religious people are more charitable than their irreligious counterparts".[/quote]
Does that include donations to Peter Poppoff ?
If they get a bit short they could just cash in some Nazi gold to tide them over
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 8,836
- Reaction score
- 1,230
- Country
Yet it obviously did.
Therefore, it logically follows that the chance of there being a "creator" (substitute God if you want) are 10 to the 74th power.
And therefore, " God" can't happen as a fluke.
I think you might be missing the point this is just have a single protein formed, not all the constituents of a cell. Just one protein, not life, not a cell.
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 8,836
- Reaction score
- 1,230
- Country
Darwin was baffled and couldnt begin to explain the explosion of life in the cambrian rock strata, that was his dilemma.
Given all the time from his theory, its still the same situation an explosion of life with complex life forms in the Cambrian, before that very little just a few very simple life forms ...........where are all the fossils of evolving life forms
Which had been taking place over millions of years ???
Given all the time from his theory, its still the same situation an explosion of life with complex life forms in the Cambrian, before that very little just a few very simple life forms ...........where are all the fossils of evolving life forms
Which had been taking place over millions of years ???
Darwin died 132 years ago, when the theory of evolution was in its infancy; science and technology have made great advances since then. To suggest that because Darwin did not have all the answers then means that science is getting it wrong now on evolution is not a good argument.
Likewise the idea that all fossils need to exist now to prove the theory of evolution is also fallacious. Geology, tectonic movement, Deep Time, inaccessibility, the sheer size of the earth etc need to be taken into account.
Always amusing when creationists use the absence of some fossils to make an argument against evolution but ignore the existence of myriad others that support it. Logically you can't have it both ways. But logic goes out the window when religion takes on science.
Also wrt the comment in previous post on the improbability of a protein being formed - see the link above in onE of mine Which has info on 'the Bridge hand'.
And here for some thoughts on other possible habitable planets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_potential_habitable_exoplanets
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,282
- Reaction score
- 1,998
- Country
Science explains HOW something happens. Not WHY something happens.
Science only exists AFTER the event - not BEFORE the event.
Science can explain how your car was built, but not who designed it or why it was designed.
That's the difference. Arguing 'science v religion' is comparing apples and bananas.
Only the feeble minded fall into that trap.
Einstein and Hubble never fell into it - so why do you lot?
Science only exists AFTER the event - not BEFORE the event.
Science can explain how your car was built, but not who designed it or why it was designed.
That's the difference. Arguing 'science v religion' is comparing apples and bananas.
Only the feeble minded fall into that trap.
Einstein and Hubble never fell into it - so why do you lot?
Sponsored Links
