First Baseman
Retired athlete
It must have nothing whatever to do with religion, I suppose.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Pink flamingos prove Creationism.
- Thread starter Desert Snake
- Start date
It must have nothing whatever to do with religion, I suppose.
Then by all means do the mathematical and scientific communities a favor by eliminating the disparate meanings of the term in both with whatever this specific meaning is.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
It must have nothing whatever to do with religion, I suppose.
Yeah, I know... He was serious in other discussions so I was giving him a benefit of a doubt.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
Yes, the royals appear to be protestant
Ciao
- viole
Oh, so it does have something to do with religion?
popsthebuilder
Active Member
Simply manipulation. Some individuals may claim that every single living thing including plants survived the flood as they are today. This is ridiculous and not not I am pertaining to as God's creation. Just because existence as a whole strives for the best existence it can attain through naturally imbued instinct(not man in general) doesn't mean that a force outside of our full comprehension did not start the process and set it all into a specific motion, if you will. The thick headedness of some is some gratification in division that leads to some false better than thou clouded concepts.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
What you are referring to is Intelligent Design, which is different than "creationism", and, as you say, does not exclude evolution. This is because evolution does not speak to the origin of life at all.
Oh, so it does have something to do with religion?
Yes. Does being a religious place entail that it cannot be considered prestigious?
I would ask myself the question why Darwin has been buried there. What do you think?
Ciao
- viole
dust1n
Zindīq
Mm, what about purposefully non-ordered. That doesn't seem random.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
My point is that it was considered a prestigious place long before anyone was ever buried there because it is/was a religious place.
There are stories that attempt to explain why Darwin was buried there. Unless someone knows for sure we can only speculate.
He also appeared on their 10 pounds notes, i strongly doubt that any of the modern creationists will appear on any bank note, famous burial place, or any place at all. Or do you have a valid candidate for that job?
Ciao
- ciole
First Baseman
Retired athlete
No.
Do I need one?
No.
Do I care about the fact that likenesses of Darwin appear on a banknote in the UK?
No.
I was talking about Westminster Abbey. You may discuss the "glory" of Darwin with another, I do not care to discuss it.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
In the context of generalization related to what i'm talking about, it's ''specific''. It's specific in a parameter correlating to the op proposition.
Last edited:
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
No I'm just using pink flamingos as an example, or unit for comparison. So, I'm not considering the non-pink ones in the OP, in the first place.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
You're contradicting other arguments posited against my position, it isn't making sense. ''Conform to probability'', doesn't even make sense; something doesn't conform to probability, unless it is being compared as such in a formula that has probability standards. actual calculations vary, because theoretical unit repetitions are usually used. Ie it is assumed that a random occurrence is taking place, /random in the broad meaning/. You either have not been reading my comments, or are not understanding them.
Yorutenchi
Member
Since there is potentially an infinite number of ways the universe could have played out it seems that anything and everything is rather against the odds. But it did happen. Saying the odds were small isn't an argument against it. The simple odds between the potential choices your parents could have made down to the uncontrolled biology of which egg dropped and which sperm was first to create you is infinity small. The smallest of things could have tipped the chances of whatever way you were conceived. Then every second of your life there were chances for things to go differently. Yet here you sit.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
I'm not confident in any posits in this context. Even if you are correct, in some general meaning, in other aspects, if one does not understand inferred probability, or apply it, then there are going to be erroneous conclusions regarding many things. So they can't be separated. It doesn't matter what I personally believe, in this context, as any calculations are affected by the same results.
Last edited:
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
It isn't stating that something didn't happen. It's putting what we can observe into a conditional perspective. Once we do that, even if completely ''general'', /, then we have results by which we can estimate or at least rule out various improbability limits. What it does affect is how probability is viewed, so to speak. Which is a very important thing, as it affects other formulas and estimates.