Who me? I'm a Navy Veteran, I bludgeon the willfully stupid with facts (mainly about history and the sciences), and host a sometimes weekly show on YouTube.
@kyle_luedtke@darwintojesus So not even going to try to steel man my position to demonstrate that you even understand what you’re attempting to argue against. Btw, if God has to tweak “the machine every now and again” then that plan was not infallible or inerrant to begin with.
@ModestyQueen19 Getting in a fight an punching a kid is a mistake, stabbing someone with a knife you had no reasonable excuse to have on your person is not a mistake, that was a choice. Choices have consequences, and he is facing the consequences of his choices.
@kyle_luedtke@darwintojesus If God knows what’s going to happen, then you didn’t truly make a choice or don’t really have a choice, that’s the point. Conversely, if you can truly make a choice of any consequence, then God begins to lose the omni- properties or the plan is no longer inerrant.
@IsaacHayes3 Did you listen to any of the testimony? Did you pay any actual attention to what the defense’s own witnesses testified to having happened? You can’t instigate, you can’t provoke a situation then claim self-defense. But I know, accountability is very difficult for some people.
@Clearpath__ 1) Sacred texts are unchanging and infallible, that’s the Bible, not scientific literature.
2) They’re not heretics, as their is no “atheist orthodoxy” which sets a standard. People will always be mocked, welcome to tribalism.
3) see above
4) again, the Bible, not the Big Bang
@oliveeasmif Maybe when it started, but now what good actually comes from it? Strip away the corporate platitudes and meaningless messaging, and what is left? What work or progress is being accomplished?
@SheepDogLegend@Esoteric_Way@mariusknulst You’re also ignoring the quote, Einstein referenced optical experiments. There are other experiments via non-optical means which do indicate motion, pendulums and gyroscopes for examples.
@RapDatUK@Tsar_Martyr You are correct, for the colloquial usage of the term. The academic/philosophic usage however is a claim which can be countered. This is the problem with both sides constantly conflating and switching between the usages, it creates and encourages confusion instead of clarity.
@nobodys_fool2@apart_blown@NotEvolution1 Never said it was a sole definition, but it is interesting how most of the definitions refer to religious beliefs which is exceptionally averse to requests for evidence.