Originally posted by KellyJayBut the problem here is that if it didn't "run like a watch" you would take
I do believe
that the fact it runs like a watch to support life shows us God's finger print,
Kelly
that as evidence of god's intervention.
The power of science is that you can use it to predict the world around us.
Believing in god does not enable you to predict anything.
Here is a list of healing testimonies.
You can read their stories, some are on u-tube, and it would not be difficult to contact them either.
These are people that received healing by the power of their Creator.
Can you put these in a test tube and have science explain each case?
http://www.awmi.net/extra/healing
Originally posted by Pianoman1Uh, what 4,000 year-ago tribesman claimed the earth was relatively then-new?
To teach young children today that the world is less than 10,000 years old amounts to the most awful abuse. To warp young minds with the staggeringly ignorant dictum that faith is more important than evidence is more harmful than sexual abuse. To deny the youth of today access to scientific empiricism because it doesn't corroborate a fable written by a wan ...[text shortened]... love of knowledge. I believe the teaching of Creationism in schools to be a very serious crime.
Your superimposition of beliefs on others hasn't brought you any closer to the truth than your deeply held convictions of life's origins. Both are petty vanities.
Originally posted by wolfgang59Oh there are predictions about the world around us, and they are not
But the problem here is that if it didn't "run like a watch" you would take
that as evidence of god's intervention.
The power of science is that you can use it to predict the world around us.
Believing in god does not enable you to predict anything.
pretty.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm afraid you don't seem to understand the scientific process Kelly. When a paper is published in a scientific journal the work is sent off to other scientists, who work within whichever particular scientific field the paper is related to, who check to make sure it is all legit. This is how the peer-review process works, these checks are in place to stop scientists making up a load of old gibberish.
People tend to see what they want, be it the best in those they like and
agree with, or worse in those they dislike and disagree with, or whatever it
is that proves their point. Science when it comes to things that cannot be
proven wrong, well the human bias is always going to be look at things in
the light that shows their own views as acceptable, and ...[text shortened]... g; however, that only
helps hide or helps people to ignore what it could be wrong about.
Kelly
Originally posted by checkbaiterOf course you can. These peoples stories can be examined and corroborated with medical evidence if possible. Besides how do you know these people have been healed by their Creator and not a wizard, or an elf or Bananaman?
Here is a list of healing testimonies.
You can read their stories, some are on u-tube, and it would not be difficult to contact them either.
These are people that received healing by the power of their Creator.
Can you put these in a test tube and have science explain each case?
http://www.awmi.net/extra/healing
Originally posted by Proper KnobIts a good thing they don't let people do that stuff than uh! 🙂
I'm afraid you don't seem to understand the scientific process Kelly. When a paper is published in a scientific journal the work is sent off to other scientists, who work within whichever particular scientific field the paper is related to, who check to make sure it is all legit. This is how the peer-review process works, these checks are in place to stop scientists making up a load of old gibberish.
Kelly
Originally posted by Pianoman1Full stop right there.
To teach young children today that the world is less than 10,000 years old amounts to the most awful abuse. To warp young minds with the staggeringly ignorant dictum that faith is more important than evidence is more harmful than sexual abuse.
No way is it more harmful than sexual abuse. Sorry, thumbs down from me.
Originally posted by Pianoman1You can include me in your little list there.
Theism is not illogical, it is simply unscientific. I still assert that faith does the individual no harm. There are many Christian Evolutionists (The Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury to name just two!). They do not spout the aberrant rubbish of the American Creationists who abuse children's minds.
Originally posted by SwissGambitChallenging to all basic core assumptions, I agree, but I stand by my assertion. Sexual abuse is vile, humiliating, dehumanising, traumatising and all the rest of it, BUT filling children's minds with lies will last to the grave and perpetuate ignorance and stupidity which will close them off to new experiences.
Full stop right there.
No way is it more harmful than sexual abuse. Sorry, thumbs down from me.