m_m

Right, because a population is a modern term, it excludes individuals. You reject science before 20cent but you are very informed about the population before 20 cent. What is your sampling? What are your respondents? Where is your data? And I'm keen on to know about the age BC. In today's world, children also die. Because of cancer, heart disease, etc.

Really? I would like to inform you that Diogenes of Sinope lived to be 90 years old. He died at 323 BC. He was a cynic. If you don't know anything about the Cynics, you are welcome to read it. And about "hygiene", he didn't use a cup or a plate. BTW, Augustine of Hippo died at the age of 83.

Yes, google translate plays tricks. I've felt it very well, because English is not my native language also. So, a third language is needed to understand what_is_going_on. For example, from my language to Spanish (or whatever) the verb "to like" is translated as "as". Do you know why? Because English "like" has two meanings. Maybe it translates to English, and then to the required language, I don't know.

You know, If you like Nietzsche and his philosophy it is good. But on my mind it's very important when you understand how his philosophy influences you personally, your relationships with your family, friends, with people, and how it influences your life in general. Because philosophy for the sake of philosophy is some foreign information, some words. I think so. The same is with the image and likeness of God. It's important what it means to some particular person. If they believe, of course.

ho-ho-ho, thank you exchemist. I also don't have what to say. Who am I to argue and ask questions? Moreover, arguing is my lack of consistency.

exchemist, what religious Scriptures do say, that human being is undoubtedly a hairless mutated ape? Mutated, you forgot the word mutated, it was a mutation. Half truth is even worse than lie. Where in the Bible is it written? And this me, who were blamed of being a troll? What you write is dangerous, because science doesn't deal with the concept of a soul. "Christianity has generally been supportive of science" - No, science was in accordance with religion. And it is very interesting that people always nodding on Galileo, because he renounced his beliefs. This is everything we should know about scientists. Please, don't substitute concepts.

Is that so? There are different religions, people took their sides in their view on Invisible Power. Even Christianity took two sides. And according to the Bible you are the image and likeness of God, according to scientists you are an hairless mutated ape. As you can see, the origin of man is a matter of choice.

There has been some attention to religion from you recently. But it looks like you want to sit on two chairs, a strange desire to combine religion and science. Why don't you discuss new scientific discoveries, if any? It is disappointment, when you wish for truth and knowledge, but instead you hit the wall of consensus, isn't it? You need to put up with some things. But it's only my opinion, never mind.

And how do last two pages relate to the topic? Oh, I know, quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi. I can only say, that it's easier to not believe, than believe. Because when you believe and look around, you want to ask "Lord, what's going on?"

Could you please remove all of my posts from this topic?

According to one author, illness (any) is absence of order. As far as I know, modern science excludes immaterial things. Are you sure you are interested in physics? Physics of colour?

I answered that the answers of science are valid for you, because there is an agreement about them. People agree, and you agree. Oh you agree with human beings to be precise. These answers are NOT TRUE, because science is not interested in truth.

I don't imply anything, I ask questions. And my question is about authority of science. Children study at school that they are animals. There was no conflict between science and religion before 20 cent. Did you know that?

And I am wondering what you are doing in the religion section. I researched this question. Yes, in English the word "a man" means male, but also human being. And for gender equality the word "human" has occurred. But a man is male, whereas man still means a human. So we are men. You can't say "he is a kind and decent human being/human" exactly because human relates to a biological distinction. And this word is soulless. This is an incorrect question because it supposed to mean that there's no difference. If I answer there is a difference it will be unethical towards animals. If there's no difference - we are animals. If the sun and moon are round does that mean they are the same? I think roundness is their property.

Of course. No, let's not talk about light and colours, it's a dangerous topic, I am not going there. Or I can ask you about purple.. This is the start of the topic. We are men. Not species, not animals, not apes. And not some biological beings aka human beings which sounds like our distinction between other species.

Or rather a source of knowledge. I explained my point of how we obtain knowledge. My question is about authority of science. The name of the topic is a quote from the Bible, and please don't forget that we are not talking about mere image and likeness, but image and likeness of God. So, that's why it's not a technical question. In your opinion. I think it would be more useful to start posts with "I think.." Then there is no generalization. We are subjective.

I know that people call themselves animals. For me it's a tragedy.

I'm talking about knowledge, or rather a source of knowledge. And knowledge about men. I hope it doesn't sound like preaching for you. Content doesn't change, but a form does. If you will say that a table is a chair, a table won't stop being one. But tables have become chairs for 2000 years somehow.

Well, I have some thoughts. I'll start from afar. For example, when a baby is born, we give him or her a name. Can we live (I'm talking about living, not existence) without a name in this world? No. There are things in our world, and people give them names. Like a form for content. So atheists take this content, our fundamentals and call it in their own manner, give names, definitions. The content is true, but names have their support (since science is not interested in truth) for those who agree with them. So these answers are valid for you, because there is some consensus. But this doesn't mean that these supported names give the essence of the content.

I apologize, I didn't want to edit my post, and "we are simulated as well" was added simultaneously with your answer. I don't argue either with Evolution, or simulation. Sorry, I leave this topic.

But I don't impose on you the Truth (I hope I don't). It's your choice, you are free to have your beliefs. I want to bring a quote of Paul the Apostle, for me it was like thunder "Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves." Romans 14:22

And "we are simulated" as well.

Because the Truth is the foundation you can lean on. Ok, you trust what you trust. And everything goes as goes. Evolution and "we are animals" don't bother me anymore.

You haven't answered my question, however. What answer (at least one) do you consider to be true? But you contradict yourself. If science isn't looking for truth, then these explanations are beliefs, if they are not truth. And how can you say that something is false, as opposite to truth, if you are not looking for truth? Best supported explanations? But these are agreements, though you don't like it when i say this. It's an endless story, you can ask your questions again and again, saying "We haven't found YET". But where is the basement to stand on?, i want to ask.

Which answers do you know for sure are true? You are not a sheep, and there is no shepherd over you. That's why you can think you are free. This answer is not false, and you depreciate it.