Originally posted by serigadoMy claims on the age of the earth is, "I do not know!"
What in the world suggests you that earth is only 6k years old? Except the bible. Do you believe blindly in what the bibles says, just because it says so?
Still waiting.
You never post your reasons, which suggests me all your knowledge is based on the bible.
I see as much reason to accept scripture as accept the reasons for
man, neither one provides anything we can call certainity. For me the
age of the earth is what it is, but with us, it is a matter of faith no
matter what age you believe to be true.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou don't know with certainty that you have a head. So, then, is it your position that your belief that you do have a head is a matter of faith?
My claims on the age of the earth is, "I do not know!"
I see as much reason to accept scripture as accept the reasons for
man, neither one provides anything we can call certainity. For me the
age of the earth is what it is, but with us, it is a matter of faith no
matter what age you believe to be true.
Kelly
Originally posted by LemonJellolol
You don't know with certainty that you have a head. So, then, is it your position that your belief that you do have a head is a matter of faith?
KJ's faith sustains him. Bless.
Although he has a point. What if we are all like the matrix? and none of what we see, touch, feel, etc is real? only thought counts, and since we can't really share that except through see, touch, feel, etc, faith (as part of thought) becomes more rational than it would otherwise be. It certainly keeps KJ sane...
Originally posted by snowinscotlandThat's useless philosophy. We all start from the assumption that what we see and experience is reality.
lol
KJ's faith sustains him. Bless.
Although he has a point. What if we are all like the matrix? and none of what we see, touch, feel, etc is real? only thought counts, and since we can't really share that except through see, touch, feel, etc, faith (as part of thought) becomes more rational than it would otherwise be. It certainly keeps KJ sane...
If a claim is supported by other people, it's consubstantiated. Strangely, Christ is only supported by christians. Isn't it strange that all other people in the world can't experience the same illusion?
Originally posted by LemonJelloI'm sorry what is before me, on me, or part of me isn't a matter of
You don't know with certainty that you have a head. So, then, is it your position that your belief that you do have a head is a matter of faith?
faith it is what it is, what you believe about things that cannot be
shown right or wrong is not the same thing, you do not grasp that?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAgain, it's a good thing our courts of law and really the rest of our society (apart from mysticism and religion) do not operate by this philosophy. It's absolutely useless.
I'm sorry what is before me, on me, or part of me isn't a matter of
faith it is what it is, what you believe about things that cannot be
shown right or wrong is not the same thing, you do not grasp that?
Kelly
Given that assuming the world to be an illusion gets us nowhere, let's agree to continue under the hypotheses that it is real and that our senses are not all lying to us all the time.
KJ, whether he'll admit it or not, lives by this assumption as does every other person alive.
When reading old testament scripture like Genesis, it is helpful to have Strong's Exhaustive Concordence with you. Also it helps to have companion notes or some other source of tranlsation. "In the beginnig the world was void and without form..." should read "The world BECAME void and without form..." Many biblical scholars believe that the author is referencing a cataclysmic event, and only relating subsequent history.
There are many instances in Old and New Testaments where King James' boys got it wrong.
Originally posted by duecerprove it is wrong!!!!
When reading old testament scripture like Genesis, it is helpful to have Strong's Exhaustive Concordence with you. Also it helps to have companion notes or some other source of tranlsation. "In the beginnig the world was void and without form..." should read "The world BECAME void and without form..." Many biblical scholars believe that the author is referenc ...[text shortened]... .
There are many instances in Old and New Testaments where King James' boys got it wrong.
Originally posted by LivingForJesusBoth the New and Old Testaments were put down on paper at the same time. How do you know that the scribes didn't fudge the prophesies to make them fit?
okay in the old testment there we 48 predictions and they all came true in the new testement!!!! that is a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 in a thrillion chance of guessin that!!!!
Originally posted by epic0002
Evolutionist believe Dr Dumb-mutha that just put his "theory" down on paper and paid for it to get published
There are literally thousands of scientists who advocate the explanation of evolution. As far as I
know, publishing in a peer-reviewed journal pays very little if anything (at least, that's how it works
in the humanities).
Creationalists believe in god. I personally put my bet on the latter.
No. Creationists bet that the Hebrew Scriptures written 2500 years ago have scientific merit and
the seal of approval from a Supreme Being to whom they attribute this specific text to the exclusion
of any other religious texts or secular explanation.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioOn top of which, if somebody publishes in a peer-reviewed journal, she’d better be covered because her work is going to be checked. And challenged. And it will be other scientists who do that, and attempt to prove her wrong if there’s basis. That may take time, and I'm not saying that there is no politics in the scientific community; but eventually it's going to happen.
Originally posted by epic0002
[b]Evolutionist believe Dr Dumb-mutha that just put his "theory" down on paper and paid for it to get published
There are literally thousands of scientists who advocate the explanation of evolution. As far as I
know, publishing in a peer-reviewed journal pays very little if anything (at least, that's how it wor ...[text shortened]... ecific text to the exclusion
of any other religious texts or secular explanation.
Nemesio[/b]
Falsification (or, in philosophical terms, defeasibility) is the name of the game. “True believers” have a tendency to set up formulations that are immune from falsification/defeasibility: there can always be some explanation. What was once understood literally becomes a metaphor; a different context needs to be applied to properly interpret the texts; faith is its own epistemic category; etc. And any system of thought that is based on falsification/defeasibility is judged to be “weak” by comparison.
Not all religionists, of course, play that game. But for those who do: “It’s nice work if you can get it.”