DaveRea

DaveRea

Lives in United Kingdom Birmingham, United Kingdom
Works as a Carer
Joined on Apr 21, 2009

Comments

Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7
In reply to:

William Woodruff: Indeed, this is a photo site, not a religious one. That was true until the attacks began on the host. When a challenge topic is "sexy," should we protest that this is a photo site, not a cheesecake site? "Ferraris" -- nope, not an auto site. "City of La Habana?" Nope, not a travel site. Cockpits? No, not about aviation. Etc.

Further, while it is true that there are many religious assertions that are, or appear to be, incorrect. Does it necessarily follow that all aspects of all religions are invalidated? Shall we apply the same logic to the sciences? Oops. In the end, there is no real conflict between science and religion. Scientific study is man's attempt to answer the question, "How?" Religious study is man's attempt to answer the question, "Why?" Both are important questions that warrant serious consideration.

In the meantime, why don't we let the host present a topic for interpretation, without the bickering.

Now I'm out of here, you may have the last word.

Borno, first of all "random chance" is never a complete idea. Most of the time when people say "random chance" they leave out the caveat of "likely event given time and the constantly occurring natural processes", which essentially shows they just don't know what they're talking about.

Secondly, order can come from disorder. Two words, crystalline structures. But again that isn't complete, natural processes are needed.

If you take the time to understand the natural sciences the world is a far more spectacular place than and a sadistic god could make.

Hell, me being able to type this on my screen and have it be viewed by anyone anywhere in the world who cares to is far more miraculous than any of the "miracles" in the Bible.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 26, 2012 at 04:40 UTC
In reply to:

William Woodruff: Indeed, this is a photo site, not a religious one. That was true until the attacks began on the host. When a challenge topic is "sexy," should we protest that this is a photo site, not a cheesecake site? "Ferraris" -- nope, not an auto site. "City of La Habana?" Nope, not a travel site. Cockpits? No, not about aviation. Etc.

Further, while it is true that there are many religious assertions that are, or appear to be, incorrect. Does it necessarily follow that all aspects of all religions are invalidated? Shall we apply the same logic to the sciences? Oops. In the end, there is no real conflict between science and religion. Scientific study is man's attempt to answer the question, "How?" Religious study is man's attempt to answer the question, "Why?" Both are important questions that warrant serious consideration.

In the meantime, why don't we let the host present a topic for interpretation, without the bickering.

Now I'm out of here, you may have the last word.

"Now I'm out of here, you may have the last word."

Ok, I will.

Intelligent design is religion's incorrect attempt at answering "How?" and Intelligent design is really what this is about. That makes your replies contradictory and confusing.
You may assert that there is no conflict between religion and science when it goes further than that. Religion is constantly in conflict with reality in general.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 24, 2012 at 23:56 UTC
In reply to:

William Woodruff: Mr. Rea, respectfully I disagree. 2+2=8 is a standard arithmetic equation, and under most circumstances would be accepted as simply, and demonstrably incorrect. (Note: I suspect that there may be exceptions in the world of quantum physics, but we need not go there.) Other aspects of our existence are not so neatly reduced to formulae; to pretend otherwise often suggests lesser, rather than greater of thoughtfulness. You seem to be suggesting that there were no insulting posts (except, of course, mine). Please consider the following:

"Intelligent design is a concept that belongs in the trash can"

"The OP hijacked a photography contest"

"I wouldn't be sorry to see the back of you and your challenges"

"It does not require a superstitious and paranormal explanation, except for those who can't accept that we are a normal part of nature"

"clear to educated adults who have put away the childish theory of a god or multiiple gods up in the ether tinkering with the natural world"

Of all those comments only the "uneducated" (which I'd already conceded) and the "see the back of you" comment wasn't made by the two people in question.
Particularly though, it's interesting that you'd see the "superstitious and paranormal" when that is absolutely factually correct in much the same way that 2+2=4.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 24, 2012 at 18:43 UTC

Saying that something is incorrect and why is not an attack, that is my point.
If I had a firm belief that 2+2=8 and posted it publicly then someone posted that it in fact =4 would you jump to my aid then?
I doubt it, yet it's essentially the same.
There is no connection though between your hypocritical comment and the ones you were addressing, other than you were addressing them. The hypocrisy was firmly contained within all that you stated yourself.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 24, 2012 at 04:29 UTC as 7th comment

Mr Woodruff,

Neither Noble nor Changer actually personally attacked anybody (except maybe for the part where Noble insinuated that religious folk are uneducated) unlike yourself, neither did they use "a most insulting manner" in the slightest.

Like it or not this is a public forum, you are open to criticism if you use it, just as you yourself are able to criticize in return. Deeming anything above criticism is incredibly dangerous.

Are you aware of the amazing hypocrisy in your second paragraph?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 23, 2012 at 10:07 UTC as 10th comment

You mean backwards and with a blind spot? Some design.....

Direct link | Posted on Nov 20, 2012 at 18:22 UTC as 2nd comment

A great, finally a challenge I can post my photos of children in Somalia being slowly eaten by a flesh eating virus.

@ Christian Jacob

Evolution doesn't require any guiding intelligence, all that's needed is an imperfect DNA replication system and survival pressures. I'm sure you can't deny the existence of those two things.

In fact, it's even impossible NOT to have evolution if those two things exist.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 17, 2012 at 14:52 UTC as 16th comment
Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7