Christians can be elite scientists so long as their area of inquiry doesn't conflict with their fantasy beliefs. Look at what Isaac Newton was able to accomplish in the field of physics. He believed he was studying the workings of God's creation. Had he been around when the facts of evolution were proposed by Darwin, on the other hand. I have a hunch he would have rejected it.
Have you seen my playlist of videos? Maybe there is something here that will work for you ru-vid.com/group/PLYRpF-ePghZ5XWoo2LleUVZPGaBkhQE5R&si=DQz18xA3z6BvQuUU
@jrmiller777 ahh man..I always autobackup my files whether photos/videos to M-OneDrive even if I trade in my phone of every 3-4 years I automatically have it all backed up to be restored on my next phone. Try to make a recovery data inspection or perhaps something. How was the interview how long did it go for? What topics were covered? Any movies specifically? Or if you can make an interview video review based on when you interviewed her please I'd really love to see what she told you and what was conducted in the interview.
I’m a liberal but there’s clearly a ton of misinformation about this on my side, which is very disturbing, I still believe he’s guilty, but we should never spread misinformation and sensationalise, it makes us look manipulative and dishonest. This year has been full of lies from every political spectrum, and it’s honestly terrifying
Really? That’s your legal argument? Just what his clueless close-minded false-patriot nitwit cult members need, another BS reason to defend the indefensible. If he walked out onto 5th Avenue with an assault rifle, aimed it at a 94 year old lady in a wheelchair, pulled the trigger 15 times, and then bragged about it, you clods would still defend him. You really would.
A good collegial discussion on a topic too often fraught with unnecessary "mental landmines" for Christians in theological dialogue over the issues of special revelation as it relates to topics like human anthropology and human historical development. Glad to hear the acknowledgement that even such strongly-held ideas as "amoeba-to-man" evolutionary common descent are recognized to be forays into reconstructive historic forensics and speculative taxonomy. What science can verify as possible with regards to "microevolution" (more a description than an explanation, to my mind) is too easily extrapolated to the larger picture, as if somehow microevolution automatically validated macroevolution. Science has not, nor can it, "prove" that, since it involves historically unrepeatable contingencies. As for "when" humanity was "created fully human, in God's image" you can't skip too fast past the fact that it's presented in Genesis 1:26-27, well before the story of Adam and Eve is even presented scripturally. Adam and Eve were, however, the first to sin against God openly, by abrogating His express command, the first "Thou shalt not" ever given was to them. In that sense they are the universal common ancestors and geneaological progenitors of all mankind, in a world where "there is none righteous, not one." Would love to speak with you, Joe, about some important nuances of theological views on these topics I've had the opportunity to bandy around with Dr. Swamidass sometime back. He really has carefully made space for alternative ideas, to the benefit of the body of Christ. Cheers!
Thanks. My goal was to create clarity about his ideas. I did eventually move on to offer some critique which you can read here open.substack.com/pub/jrmiller777/p/correcting-misconceptions-about-swamidass?r=2phu3d&
Are you may be a law professor, but you’re very ignorant. Trump is a felon, and he will be convicted in federal court at the crimes of treason and you, sir you should resign because you’re stupid
If you want the “real” definition of CRT go to critical race theory and introduction by Richard Delgado, and his wife, introduction by Cheryl Harris. On page 3, he gives you a definition of critical race theory. Richard Delgado is the eighth most sided legal scholar in history, a founder of critical race theory, and probably the most prolific critical race theorist. At minimum critical race theory is a political movement that seeks to change social values, culture and government policies. 2:05
I've cited Delgado in other longer works. He is definitely one of the most cited sources. However, are you suggesting that Dr. Tommy Curry provides an incorrect summary/definition of CRT? He is an African American scholar hired by the University of Edinburgh, in part, for his expertise in Critical Race Theory. That is also why he was used to literally write the definition for the Encyclopedia Britannica. Just because you don't know his name doesn't mean his work is not "real". Or do you just not trust Black scholars to define CRT?
@@jrmiller777 Richard D’Angelo is a founder of CRT along with Dr. Derrick Bell and Kimberly Williams Crenshaw and like I said is the eighth most sided legal scholar in history. He wrote the most published, read, taught, and most likely respected book on the topic of critical race theory with the definition of critical race theory virtually on the first page. “The critical race theory movement is a collection of activist and scholars, engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power.” to me what makes this the best definition is it a count for all aspects of critical race theory from theory to Praxis. Also, by using the word movement, he declares critical race theory is not contained by scholarship or academia. It’s for reaching from academic scholarship to all the way in which the federal government is implementing equity. From how races conceptualized in K-12 to it, intersects with pride… Etc..
Trump IS a convicted felon found guilty by a jury of his peers. He is also a pathological lier and a RAPIST. Who is their right mind could support this scumbag?!
Indeed, Newton was bonkers, nutso, deep-end religious, and look at what he was able to accomplish in the scientific realm. So a belief in god won't necessarily derail an individual's scientific inquiry. Unless, of course, it's in an area like "intelligent design," for example. Here they start with a conclusion, then try to shoehorn the evidence to fit into their predetermined beliefs. This is the opposite of science which, ideally, attempts to follow the facts wherever they may lead to an as of yet undetermined conclusion.
It's not that a Christian can't be an elite scientist, it's that an elite scientist can't be a Christian. In developing the critical thinking, skepticism, and standard of proof required to become an "elite scientist", you would realize early on how utterly nonsensical religion is. Belief in religion requires low logical reasoning ability.
What about someone like Newton, who was way, way down the rabbit hole of religious belief. And yet look at what he was able to accomplish. He clearly qualifies as elite.
An interensting question on that whould be the following: (I don't have an opinion on that I just want to create a discussion) Do elite scientists accept norms in subjects other than those they pursue just because they don't want to have a bad reputation with the majority of the people ? I am always speaking for the majority of the scientists I will have to imagine that being in their way of life, thinking something else other than what they pursue will make them sloppy in their work, make them lose time and possibly even make them lose "face" Two examples on that whould be: Alan Turing who openly was gay and got bad rep for that and for example a really important person in the greek Revolution who never said he was gay in order not to lose face (but we know he was through a lot of different sources that people from his close circle revealed after his death) I personally believe that religion should be something like a personal moral code and not what to eat and when based on someone's writtings ages ago. That personal moral code could be influenced be many religions at once and as long as you don't hurt others as a part of your point of view in life, I don't care. People believe what they see but they also see what they want to believe in, in many cases. Although looking the world from the lens of logic is something that must be the norm (yet even atheists fail to do so sometimes), in a personal level I will always welcome some magic and romance. Thanks for reading, if you want lets discuss it !
If you really are stupid enough to believe that trump wasn't screwed over by Biden's court you should not be considered smart enough to vote or reproduce. MAGA.
😂😂😂😂charged by a grand jury of his peers, convicted by a jury of his peers selected by both the prosecutors and his defense, awaiting sentence by a judge who has accepted the verdict. This is public record. If you believe this guy, you are dumber than a bag of rocks.
Don't try to minimize Trump's conviction with some backroom procedure assigned to the presiding judge. Signing a document attesting to someone's guilt or innocence is a formality. It is the jury's decision which is of paramount importance. Trump was found guilty by a jury, that's all that matters
@@TedSeay he remains a convicted felon until a N.Y. State court reverses his convictions. He cannot pardon himself on a state conviction so he might be elected, he will appeal, the appeal will not be heard before the election so the U..S. will have a convicted felon as it's elected political leader during his term in office.
He was found guilty, but it not convicted until the judge hands down his ruling. Recognizing the truth about how our courts operate does not minimize anything. There is no greater threat to our nation than the ignorance of political ideologues.
Yes he could file litigation on a technicality - find one court that would rule in his favour. Remember the 60+ law suits Trump filed about election fraud and every single one of them were dismissed on first application because there was no evidence or proof of what Trump was trying to do and he FAILED.
@@jrmiller777 it is not possible in any jurisdiction to sue a jury decision on the basis of libel. Appeals courts handle appeals and once found guilty by a sworn in jury, that is the defendant's only avenue of approach. If a witness lies under oath that isn't libel it's perjury.
@@DAVIDKAMEN-xj7rg You seem to have missed the argument. Trump is not a convicted felon until the judge enters his final ruling. He's not suggesting Trump sues the jury, he's asking if he could sue the media for calling him a convicted felon when he is not yet convicted.
@@jrmiller777 a duly sworn jury rendered their decisions and all the findings were clearly guilty. Waiting for a judge to sign a document does not change the verdicts. You are grasping at straws - Trump is guilty until an appeals court rules otherwise.
Keep this on the DL because black America LOVES this part of Trump, which you can top off with being the only president who’s ancestors never owned slaves in his genealogy - all the other presidents have owned slaves in their ancestoral history by at least 1 relative
Boy, oh boy. Mr Smarty Pants, how can the Judge contradict the verdict of a panel of your peers? Besides, Trump have been convicted by a jury, therefore he is at least Convicted, and Almost-To-Be-A-Covicted-Felon. Meanwhile he has to surrenders his firearms, and has hit a few legal hurdles. Is that not what we want in a POTUS?
You might want to go back and listen to the video in its entirety again! This time, objectively, he did explain it! Oh, curious, where'd you get your law degree!?👌
Not true. I have got more then 30 hours of History of religions. Yoy know what. There is nothing about god. Just people fighting for power. Nothing more. No god. No miracles. Just people.
