Flat Earth Christians

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Are we taling of the story how the Elephant got his long nose? Or are we talking about Cinderella? Is it physical science job to explain it at all?

Another way of asking the same question: can fiction contain truth?

It's an error to use science to attack or justify the Bible.

It's perfectly permissible to use science to shoot down quasi-scientific arguments pushing a religious agenda.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Are we taling of the story how the Elephant got his long nose? Or are we talking about Cinderella? Is it physical science job to explain it at all?

But when a Cinderellist talks about Cinderella as the truth, and try to convince everyone of its value of truth, and try to prove Cinderella scientifically? Then the science community has to step in and say, Cinderella cannot be prooven scientifically, because Cinderella is only a fairy tale.

Again you avoid the question and answer as if asked about something else.

Originally posted by Palynka
Again you avoid the question and answer as if asked about something else.

But in the shadows the puppet master frowns ...

Originally posted by black beetle
The so called "word of God" (OT, NT, Bible) is a compilation of myths and doctrines written by human beings in order to help a unique race to advance. In addition, there are numerous religions along with uncountable Christian heresies which all claim that they are "the word of God".

Regarding the issue "Evolutionism Vs Creationism", Darwin and Wall ...[text shortened]... idence shows that evolutionim has by far more possibilities that creationism. That's all;

You know I'd talk to Darwin if he were here, but not sure he ever
played chess and he is dead too, you on the other hand brought up
evolution of the eye and said you wanted to debate it. I have seen
your retorts on religion, except they do not add to the discussion of
the evolution of the eye. Can we if possible stick to the topic you
brought up and lay off religion, I'd like to avoid your views on
faith and stick to your views on the evolution of the eye, unless of
course your views are all based on faith, in which case religion
will surely become and stay a major part of this discussion.

You are again spouting your beliefs without backing them up,
evolution has by far more possibilities than creation is a statement
of faith, and to tell you the truth, creation and evolution are two
completely different subjects. If all you have are statements of
faith about evolution I suggest you stop this before your religion
comes under question.
Kelly

Originally posted by C U Soon
what? i never wanted to 'prove evolution of the eye', must've been someone else, since i don't believe in evolution...😕

I more than likely responded to someone you were talking to, my
bad.
Kelly

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
People lack stamina these days.

No, I think it will be more because there are huge leaps of faith
surrounding the beliefs on how the eye evolved, much like God
created the heavens and the earth, you believe, or you don't. There
isn't any evidence unless you stand on one leg and jump while
holding your arms straight out during the 2nd full moon of the
month, meaning you have to look at it just right, or it isn't there.
Kelly

Originally posted by Palynka
Again you avoid the question and answer as if asked about something else.

He will demand things of you he is not willing to do himself, he really
does not add to much in the discussions except to insult people of
faith even though he has plenty of faith himself.
Kelly

Originally posted by Palynka
Again you avoid the question and answer as if asked about something else.

If the question were "But can physical sciences tell us anything about the value of a particular fairy-tale?" then I cannot answer your question satisfactory. I don't find the question well defined. Perhaps I have linguistic problems with it. Can you reformulate the question?

What particular fairy-tale do you have in mind?

Originally posted by KellyJay
He will demand things of you he is not willing to do himself, he really
does not add to much in the discussions except to insult people of
faith even though he has plenty of faith himself.
Kelly

That's a bit harsh. He is perhaps guilty of painting Christianity with a very broad brush, but I don't think he means it to be insulting.

Originally posted by KellyJay
He will demand things of you he is not willing to do himself, he really
does not add to much in the discussions except to insult people of
faith even though he has plenty of faith himself.
Kelly

I have full respect of Palynka. I think his ideas are valuable. The discussion gives fruit.

But people who believe in a Young Earth, and trying to prove it by science mumbo, those I don't have much respect of. Sorry...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
If the question were "But can physical sciences tell us anything about the value of a particular fairy-tale?" then I cannot answer your question satisfactory. I don't find the question well defined. Perhaps I have linguistic problems with it. Can you reformulate the question?

What particular fairy-tale do you have in mind?

Take Little Red Riding Hood, for example. Can physical sciences tells us anything about the value of that particular fairy-tale?

Originally posted by Palynka
That's a bit harsh. He is perhaps guilty of painting Christianity with a very broad brush, but I don't think he means it to be insulting.

I don't know, when he calls them morons, anti-science, and a list
of other names I'd say he is insulting.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't know, when he calls them morons, anti-science, and a list
of other names I'd say he is insulting.
Kelly

Believe me, the insults are not used to the normal kind of mentally healthy christians, only those that believes in an earth created 6000 years ago, and those trying to use science to prove it. Them I call anti-science, it's not used as an insult, only as a fact. Morons, on the other hand I usually use as an insult.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You know I'd talk to Darwin if he were here, but not sure he ever
played chess and he is dead too, you on the other hand brought up
evolution of the eye and said you wanted to debate it. I have seen
your retorts on religion, except they do not add to the discussion of
the evolution of the eye. Can we if possible stick to the topic you
brought up and l ...[text shortened]... ith about evolution I suggest you stop this before your religion
comes under question.
Kelly

I have no religion;

You don't have to talk with Darwin, my friend, however you will find the answers you are looking for at his "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection";

Originally posted by Palynka
Yes. Does it need to be true in order to have value for a child's education?

That's a very good point :- does something have to be true (I assume you mean in a literal sense) for it to have value?

Of course not:- we can learn a lot about our fellow humans through books that combine facts with fiction, and mix it all up with poetry, song, whatever inspires.

What happens though when we lose ourselves in the poetry, and forget the facts? We might find great comfort in the fiction, so much so that we turn our backs on reality? Or, worse still, convince ourselves that our reality is the 'correct' version, and insist that all others are simply wrong. I think there are more than a few out there, who are pushing themselves close to that edge.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23389711-details/Sadistic+foster+mother's+19-year+reign+of+terror/article.do