Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Damage Done by Creationism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="GrayAngel" data-source="post: 60921610" data-attributes="member: 162431"><p>What is the common objective variable that we can use to pit faith and science together? What is the measuring stick that can be applied to both fairly? In my view, no such measure exists, so it's fallacious to claim that science will always win against faith. You're measuring faith by the standards of science, which is based on hard facts, but the value of faith is not measured by solid evidence.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Woah, woah. Hold it. These "problems" were not in the Bible. Unicorns exist only in the King James Version, which is a <em>translation</em> of the Bible, and it is what took liberties to change certain details like that. We do not reinterpret the Bible to remove unicorns because unicorns were never in there until we put it there.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>When did I say that it was literal? I was arguing the opposite point. <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/doh.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":doh:" title="doh :doh:" data-shortname=":doh:" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Evolution is not falsifiable. It's self-proving. We can't travel back in time and show whether or not life did, in fact, originate from a single-celled organism. Same with evolutionary behavioral study. When we claim that a certain behavior is good for a species, how do we justify that claim?</p><p></p><p>Well, if it must have been good for their species, otherwise the behavior would have died out through natural selection.</p><p></p><p>It uses itself as proof for itself.</p><p></p><p>I do not deny that evolution exists. However, I am currently neutral when it comes to the claim that humans evolved from lower species.</p><p></p><p>I know how science works. I use these principles often in my studies in psychology, although some don't consider psychology a science.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You just pretty much reworded the main point of the post you're replying to. The creation story does not fit the criteria because it was never meant to be used for scientific purposes. The Christians of today have started interpreting it that way, but this says nothing about the original intent of the author.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="GrayAngel, post: 60921610, member: 162431"] What is the common objective variable that we can use to pit faith and science together? What is the measuring stick that can be applied to both fairly? In my view, no such measure exists, so it's fallacious to claim that science will always win against faith. You're measuring faith by the standards of science, which is based on hard facts, but the value of faith is not measured by solid evidence. Woah, woah. Hold it. These "problems" were not in the Bible. Unicorns exist only in the King James Version, which is a [I]translation[/I] of the Bible, and it is what took liberties to change certain details like that. We do not reinterpret the Bible to remove unicorns because unicorns were never in there until we put it there. When did I say that it was literal? I was arguing the opposite point. :doh: Evolution is not falsifiable. It's self-proving. We can't travel back in time and show whether or not life did, in fact, originate from a single-celled organism. Same with evolutionary behavioral study. When we claim that a certain behavior is good for a species, how do we justify that claim? Well, if it must have been good for their species, otherwise the behavior would have died out through natural selection. It uses itself as proof for itself. I do not deny that evolution exists. However, I am currently neutral when it comes to the claim that humans evolved from lower species. I know how science works. I use these principles often in my studies in psychology, although some don't consider psychology a science. You just pretty much reworded the main point of the post you're replying to. The creation story does not fit the criteria because it was never meant to be used for scientific purposes. The Christians of today have started interpreting it that way, but this says nothing about the original intent of the author. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Damage Done by Creationism
Top
Bottom