Scientists say...

[Eli G]

The understanding of the concept "God" is not at all foreign to racinalism.

Firstly, this concept has always existed in the human mind, included in the mentality of very advanced civilizations of the past, such as the Greeks or the Egyptians... Secondly, by equating the term "God" with the term "Creator" the supposed naturalistic incomprehensibility of the term disappears completely.

In the atheist mind it is very easy to find a thought about extraterrestrial life that is not at all different from the "religious" idea of a Creator or God who is far above human beings.

 

[Pogo]

Does the term "naturalism" describe the same concept that Marxism calls "materialism"?

No, we are discussing biology and not economics per Marx and even then, still no.

 

[Pogo]

The understanding of the concept "God" is not at all foreign to racinalism.

Firstly, this concept has always existed in the human mind, included in the mentality of very advanced civilizations of the past, such as the Greeks or the Egyptians... Secondly, by equating the term "God" with the term "Creator" the supposed naturalistic incomprehensibility of the term disappears completely.

In the atheist mind it is very easy to find a thought about extraterrestrial life that is not at all different from the "religious" idea of a Creator or God who is far above human beings.

None of which has anything to do with the scientific method.

 

[Eli G]

The existence of God is not a matter that concerns biology.

PS: marxism is a philosophy.

 

[Eli G]

The concept of "science" has become a cliché abused by evolutionists. The vast majority of defenders of this teaching are not scientists at all, and they defend it because they consider that those who teach it are superior to them in knowledge, and not because they are convinced that the teaching has real evidence.

 

[Eli G]

A speaker who gives a lecture where she says that the ape's brain grew and finally made it more intelligent over time because it learned to light a fire, and when cooking had more time to spend thinking is not a "scientist" at all.

Someone tell me in what category I can include that kind of indoctrinator.

PS: that lecture of a supposed expert in the theory of evolution is real; I heard it online. Many people paid to hear this...

 

[Ajax]

Does the term "naturalism" describe the same concept that Marxism calls "materialism"?

Honestly... materialism was developed between 800-200 BC, some 2500 years before Marx.

In short, Naturalism is a system of thought which holds that everything can be explained by nature, where as Materialism simply believes that everything in existence is material. Materialism is indeed naturalistic, but a naturalist is not necessarily a materialist.
Are you a Trump supporter?

 

[Eli G]

Honestly... materialism was developed between 800-200 BC, some 2500 years before Marx.

In short, Naturalism is a system of thought which holds that everything can be explained by nature, where as Materialism simply believes that everything in existence is material. Materialism is indeed naturalistic, but a naturalist is not necessarily a materialist.

A few minutes ago I found a somehow different perspective. It said that marxism is a kind of naturalism, philosophically speaking.

PS: I am politically neutral, since I believe that the only solution to human problems is in the Kingdom of God that will be soon established on earth.

 

[Eli G]

A speaker who gives a lecture where she says that the ape's brain grew and finally made it more intelligent over time because it learned to light a fire, and when cooking had more time to spend thinking is not a "scientist" at all.

Someone tell me in what category I can include that kind of indoctrinator.

PS: that lecture of a supposed expert in the theory of evolution is real; I heard it online. Many people paid to hear this...

Curiously, currently it is no longer taught that the size of the skull as a brain cavity is a determining factor in the intellectual capacity of humans or in their supposed evolutionary development.

And I agree... Are people with smaller than average heads necessarily less intelligent than others or vice versa?

 

[Ajax]

A few minutes ago I found a somehow different perspective. It said that marxism is a kind of naturalism, philosophically speaking.

PS: I am politically neutral, since I believe that the only solution to human problems is in the Kingdom of God that will be soon established on earth.

Marxism and Religion

 

[Eli G]

I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness in a country that indoctrinates children in Marxist-Leninist philosophy. I don't think I need third opinions on this...but thanks.

 

[Ajax]

Are people with smaller than average heads necessarily less intelligent than others?

As far as I know no, head size is not a reliable indicator of intelligence. IQ is a complex measure of cognitive abilities and is not determined by head size. There are many factors that contribute to intelligence, and head size is not one of them.

 

[Eli G]

As far as I know no, head size is not a reliable indicator of intelligence. IQ is a complex measure of cognitive abilities and is not determined by head size. There are many factors that contribute to intelligence, and head size is not one of them.

That's the new "understanding" of evolutionism. Some MONTHS ago they said something different ... and maybe a few months later it will change again, and again, and again, ... Most people in RF just need to update their supposed "knowledge" according to what the "experts" tell them.

 

[Ajax]

That is "the new light" of the evolutionists. Some MONTHS ago they said something different ... and maybe tomorrow it will change again, and again, and again, ... Most people in RF just need to update their supposed "knowledge" according to what the "experts" tell them.

Although your statement is not correct, that's the beauty of science. If someone proves the invalidity of previous findings, becomes a hero, until someone else disproves him/her. This is how science progress and evolves, contrary to religion which remains stagnant for 2500 years.

 

[Eli G]

Although your statement is not correct, that's the beauty of science. If someone proves the invalidity of previous findings, becomes a hero, until someone else disproves him/her. This is how science progress and evolves, contrary to religion which remains stagnant for 2500 years.

And that is a big problem, that people take themselves so seriously, to the point of persecuting and abusing those who think differently, an issue that you consider "aesthetic."

 

[Eli G]

I am a JW. We are not "stagnant" as you say ... I agree with you that most religions are, though.

 

[Ajax]

And that is a big problem, that people take themselves so seriously, to the point of persecuting and abusing those who think differently, an issue that you consider "aesthetic."

No I do not consider it at all "aesthetic". I strongly support that everyone has the right to believe as one wishes. Perhaps what you wrote applies to religions, which for centuries were burning, tormenting and killing people having different opinions.

 

[Eli G]

No I do not consider it at all "aesthetic". I strongly support that everyone has the right to believe as one wishes. Perhaps what you wrote applies to religions, which for centuries were burning, tormenting and killing people having different opinions.

Not my religion.

Nevertheless, evolution is just a belief, and some mistakenly think that what it involves determines what science is.

 

[Ajax]

Not my religion.

Nevertheless, evolution is just a belief, and some mistakenly think that what it involves determines what science is.

No I don't agree with that at all, although you can believe whatever you want.
Science has documented many examples of the evolution of resistance of pests to pesticides, weeds to herbicides, and pathogens to medicines all of which are cases of microevolution by natural selection. In the case of antibiotic resistance, for example, a bacterial strain’s huge population size and short generation time mean that natural selection acts quickly. In each bacterial generation, new mutations and gene combinations are generated. If any of these confer resistance to a drug to which the bacteria are exposed, natural selection will favor those gene versions. Over the course of many bacterial generations (a small fraction of a single human lifetime), the bacteria adapt to our defenses, evolving right out from under our attempts to rid ourselves of them.
Now your turn...Why God created pathogens and...mosquitoes?

 

[Eli G]

Science has never discovered a species that has become another. But I also think that you can believe whatever you want.