8 minutes ago, m_m said:

In your opinion.

Not my opinion, the opinion by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.

11 minutes ago, m_m said:

In your opinion

An easier one and you can try this at home.

Genesis 9:12-15 states: “And God said, 'This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth."

Also wrong, we do not need a god to create a rainbow and it is nothing to do with promises. Light, colour, refraction and how prisms work are well understood now.

You can buy one on line for 5 bucks, set it up shine a light at it and make a rainbow, I am pretty certain you are not god and you do not have to make any promises.

Just now, m_m said:

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.

Surely you understand the difference between a statement and a question ?

The title of the thread is not a question, nor is it an invitation to discuss anything.

For that invitation we must turn to the first line of the first post where Externet very very clearly spelled out his question. Or actually questions all related.

He also explained in an expanded quote what source material he war referring to.

In short a model question.

43 minutes ago, m_m said:

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

Are we vegetables, then? Which category are we in?

17 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

Not my opinion, the opinion by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.

Of course.

18 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

Light, colour,

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..

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

Surely you understand the difference between a statement and a question ?

The title of the thread is not a question, nor is it an invitation to discuss anything.

For that invitation we must turn to the first line of the first post where Externet very very clearly spelled out his question. Or actually questions all related.

He also explained in an expanded quote what source material he war referring to.

In short a model question.

Can anyone confirm; I have the same doubt in different languages... Do humans look like God ? What is "our" image ? Who are 'our' ? God "said" : who heard that ? "Likeness" ?

This is the start of the topic.

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

Are we vegetables, then? Which category are we in?

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.

54 minutes ago, m_m said:

Of course

So then you have a choice. Either accept the overwhelming evidence that man evolved or claim we were created in the image of a god.

Evolution has the evidence, creationism does not

Either accept the science or not.

1 hour ago, m_m said:

Or I can ask you about purple..

Ask away but perhaps start another thread.

1 hour ago, m_m said:

No, let's not talk about light and colours, it's a dangerous

Rainbows are not dangerous, a child can create one with a little knowledge of physics, no gods or promises required.

1 hour ago, m_m said:

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.

Mate, you're painting yourself into a corner; other's might say "stop digging"... 😉

1 hour ago, m_m said:

We are men. Not species, not animals, not apes

We are all of those things if you are at all for biology and taxonomy.

If you also dismiss this area of science, I am wondering why you are on a science website at all.

1 hour ago, pinball1970 said:

Not my opinion, the opinion by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.

To be fair, that doesn't make you right... 😉

1 hour ago, m_m said:

We are men.

What about women?

1 hour ago, m_m said:

Not species, not animals, not apes. And not some biological beings aka human beings which sounds like our distinction between other species.

What biological properties distinguish us from apes and other animals?

43 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

If you also dismiss this area of science, I am wondering why you are on a science website at all.

And I am wondering what you are doing in the religion section.

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

What about women?

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.

29 minutes ago, swansont said:

What biological properties distinguish us from apes and other animals?

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.

7 minutes ago, m_m said:

And I am wondering what you are doing in the religion section

It's a science platform first (the clue is is the name)

There is a cross over though isn't there? If there was no conflict with science and religion then Genesis would be talking about Quantum Mechanics and Bacteria.

It doesn't, the view of the Universe has zero bearing on reality and i am giving you examples which you keep ignoring.

18 minutes ago, m_m said:

And I am wondering what you are doing in the religion section.

So I will ask you again. Are you rejecting science?

59 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

To be fair, that doesn't make you right... 😉

I trust science over superstition and revelation, science works I use it every day.

Edited July 9Jul 9 by pinball1970
Spelling

1 hour ago, m_m said:

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.

But I can say that, and others can, too.

1 hour ago, m_m said:

And this word is soulless.

Soul? Who said anything about a soul?

1 hour ago, m_m said:

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.

This is dodging the question.

If there’s no difference, then there’s no justification for putting humans in a special category.

1 hour ago, m_m said:

If the sun and moon are round does that mean they are the same?

This mischaracterizes my question; I did base anything on one property. I can point to differences between them. The temperature, owing to the processes producing internal heat, would be one. Composition would be another. (I don’t think that I’ve committed any ethical issues by doing so.)

1 hour ago, m_m said:

I think roundness is their property.

It’s one property, but various balls used in sports are spherical, too. Do you mistake them for celestial objects?

To avoid more waffling on your part, the underlying point here is that your view is subjective, and science deals with things that are objective; they are true whether or not you believe them (e.g. gravity, and the rest of physics. Belief will not keep you from falling if you jump off a cliff)

The problem is that you are presenting subjective views as if they are objectively true, and that’s why people are calling it out as preaching. Because that’s exactly what it is. Even in the religion subforum, we deal with objective facts. The content of what you believe is an objective fact; you’re here to attest to it. You can even cite what others believe if there’s evidence of those beliefs. But you cross the line when you imply that what you believe needs to be true for others.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

when you imply that what you believe needs to be true for others.

I don't imply anything, I ask questions.

And my question is about authority of science. Children study at school that they are animals.

2 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

If there was no conflict with science and religion

There was no conflict between science and religion before 20 cent. Did you know that?

5 minutes ago, m_m said:

I don't imply anything, I ask questions.

but don't answer questions put to you which makes you dishonest.

6 minutes ago, m_m said:

There was no conflict between science and religion before 20 cent. Did you know that?

Of course that is wrong. Are you just posting ignorant nonsense now?

When did Galileo publish? Any issues there? What about Darwin?

1 minute ago, pinball1970 said:

but don't answer questions put to you which makes you dishonest.

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.

Edited July 9Jul 9 by m_m

What about mental illness? Did the science community still think was all demons till the 20thC?

2 minutes ago, m_m said:

These answers are NOT TRUE, because science is not interested in truth

A gave you a solid example you can do in your own home with a prism.

THIRD time, you don't need a god or a promise to produce a rainbow.

A child can do this, Genesis writers did not know basic physics so made up a story.

So stop lying and answer the direct question. Is Genesis wrong or not?

7 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

What about mental illness? Did the science community still think was all demons till the 20thC?

According to one author, illness (any) is absence of order. As far as I know, modern science excludes immaterial things.

17 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

A gave you a solid example you can do in your own home with a prism.

THIRD time, you don't need a god or a promise to produce a rainbow.

A child can do this, Genesis writers did not know basic physics so made up a story.

So stop lying and answer the direct question. Is Genesis wrong or not?

Are you sure you are interested in physics? Physics of colour?

Edited July 9Jul 9 by m_m

2 hours ago, m_m said:

I don't imply anything, I ask questions.

And my question is about authority of science. Children study at school that they are animals.

Except you don’t ask many questions. I just went back about 10 posts and there was one about color, one that was obviously rhetorical and one that you asked so that you could give the answer.

I tried to impart to you that you were preaching, but since that message didn’t get through, I’ve split this off to the trash