Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ahayes
...he was talking about the human genome....

Ultimately, he was speaking about God:

For Collins, unravelling the human genome did not create a conflict in his mind. Instead, it allowed him to “glimpse at the workings of God”.

“When you make a breakthrough it is a moment of scientific exhilaration because you have been on this search and seem to have found it,” he said. “But it is also a moment where I at least feel closeness to the creator in the sense of having now perceived something that no human knew before but God knew all along.

“When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can’t survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can’t help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God’s mind.”

Why is that (seemingly) so difficult for you to accept?
644 posted on 06/14/2007 5:59:55 AM PDT by betty boop ("Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- A. Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies ]


To: betty boop
Why is that (seemingly) so difficult for you to accept?

Why is it so difficult for you to admit a mistake? This seems to be a habit of yours.

646 posted on 06/14/2007 6:39:56 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies ]

To: betty boop

You said he was speaking about the Bible. We pointed out he was speaking about the genome. It’s a trivial mistake (you trusted the wrong source), yet instead of saying, “Oops, I had the context wrong on that,” you continued to say that he was talking about the Bible, then said that he was talking about both simultaneously, and now say that he was talking about God. Duh! Of course he was talking about God, but he was definitely not talking about the Bible!

My question is why you have such a hard time backing down when we point out something you’ve quoted was actually never said or was said in a different context than you gave? We agree truth and what actually happened is important, right, so why is it you have to be dragged kicking and screaming into admitting the facts?


647 posted on 06/14/2007 7:02:48 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson