...Do you even believe in Evolution in the first palce?

[Archaeopteryx]

"We glean from a scientific mean in this world." And physicist dont?

Yet, I would expect this response from you. You have no idea the overlap biology/chemistry/physics forge. Otherwise, your naive statement would not have been borne.

If you were a scientist, I suspect you would realize chemistry, physics and biology overlap on several topics. The three disciplines are capable of verifying results of their discoveries. Hats? I have a physicist hat. But, perhaps you are on to something. A physicsit must have a Computer science hat, physical chemistry hat, physics hat, and biophysicist hat.

As the saying goes: biologists answer to chemists, chemists answer to physicists , physicists answer to mathematicians, and mathematicians answer to God. If you are interested in what you think is true, then have fun. I know what I can prove. I am not a layperson that is at the whim of science. I have my own knowledge.

That's a pretty silly saying.

 

[KWCrazy]

Then nobody is obliged to agree with you that you are recounting a genuine miracle.

Would you like to read the personal testimonies of people who have experienced miracles? You don't need a 2,000 year old book. You need look no further than this forum.

Miracles, it seems, are not particularly rare. They are difficult to prove because they don't leave physical evidence. That doesn't make them any less real.

For some reason atheists seem to wear their disbelief as a crown of enlightenment. David called them fools in Psalms 14:1. They live in a world surrounded by evidence of God's majesty and yet they refuse to see it. Denying God doesn't make Him less real any more than closing your eyes makes it nighttime. You are surrounded by people who have seen to them proof of what you deny. When you continue to deny the God that we know, it makes you seem as foolish as someone who doesn't believe in oceans because he's never seen one personally.

Read the personal testimonies.... if you dare.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Would you like to read the personal testimonies of people who have experienced miracles? You don't need a 2,000 year old book. You need look no further than this forum.

Miracles, it seems, are not particularly rare. They are difficult to prove because they don't leave physical evidence. That doesn't make them any less real.

For some reason atheists seem to wear their disbelief as a crown of enlightenment. David called them fools in Psalms 14:1. They live in a world surrounded by evidence of God's majesty and yet they refuse to see it. Denying God doesn't make Him less real any more than closing your eyes makes it nighttime. You are surrounded by people who have seen to them proof of what you deny. When you continue to deny the God that we know, it makes you seem as foolish as someone who doesn't believe in oceans because he's never seen one personally.

Read the personal testimonies.... if you dare.

You go and read the personal testimonies of Muslims, of Jews, of Hindus...

What confidence should we place in the personal testimonies of the religious when those testimonies are deeply inconsistent with one another?

 

[KWCrazy]

What confidence should we place in the personal testimonies of the religious when those testimonies are deeply inconsistent with one another?

1. These people are members here.
2. These are personal and eyewitness accounts.
3. A true scientist explores. A coward hides from the truth.

 

[BarryDesborough]

If you think evolution is all right, then you can study it alone or teach it to your children. But I don't think it is a wise choice.Think how many innocent people are killed in China and Russia and how many poor people in these countries who desperately hope to live a better life just like us ! We should gratitude for all the things we reserve rather than complain to our society or doubt the existence of God.

Evolution is a theory of science. It is not a country, a religion, a religious or political critique, a political philosophy, or any other sort of philosophy.

Reality is not a matter of personal choice. You can choose to pretend reality is not what it is, but that is not a good choice. Nothing good comes from that which is false.

 

[bhsmte]

What you think is all right from the point of view of you. But we always make mistakes just like people in China or other countries. We should continually seek the answer before we get the final result.

?????????????????

People in China? Please translate.

 

[bhsmte]

NO. I think miracles neednt be verified. If a miracle happened to you,you should tell it to others. You shouldnt verify it even when others don't believe it.

Don't verify? What happened to seeking the answer? Or should I ask, what method do you use to seek answers?

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution is a theory of science.

So was Phlogiston, until it was pwned by combustion theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or should I ask, what method do you use to seek answers?

That's a good question for our current Christian-seeker, who is here to do anything but seek ... more like here to preach science to us who have already sought and found.

 

[durangodawood]

So was Phlogiston, until it was pwned by combustion theory.

The very early days of science saw a proliferation of untestable-at-the-time hypotheses.

 

[AV1611VET]

The very early days of science saw a proliferation of untestable-at-the-time hypotheses.

So?

 

[durangodawood]

So?

So: The knowledge we gain from scientific inquiry is more reliable than youd think if your focus is on those early days.

Even in contemporary science, brand new avenues of inquiry are less reliable than the tried-and-true, I think.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

1. These people are members here.
2. These are personal and eyewitness accounts.3. A true scientist explores. A coward hides from the truth.

Muslims also have personal and eyewitness accounts. So do Hindus. What happens when personal/eye-witness accounts are in conflict? Should I privilege the testimony of the members here for some reason?

 

[AV1611VET]

So: The knowledge we gain from scientific inquiry is more reliable than youd think if your focus is on those early days.

Even in contemporary science, brand new avenues of inquiry are less reliable than the tried-and-true, I think.

If you say so.

Just don't expect me to salivate, just because some philosophy has "theory of" before it.

You Pavlovs can, but I'll pass.

 

[CabVet]

So was Phlogiston, until it was pwned by combustion theory.

Funny how it was proposed as a "theory" without much evidence, and rejected by scientific experimentation less than 100 years after it was first proposed, isn't it?

 

[durangodawood]

If you say so.

Just don't expect me to salivate, just because some philosophy has "theory of" before it.

You Pavlovs can, but I'll pass.

Not "if I say so".

You can check it out for yourself.

And the salivating dog comparison would indicate you are operating from contempt, rather than from the basic respect needed for open discussion.

 

[CabVet]

You Pavlovs can, but I'll pass.

I didn't quite get the insult, can you clarify?

 

[AV1611VET]

Funny how it was proposed as a "theory" without much evidence, and rejected by scientific experimentation less than 100 years after it was first proposed, isn't it?

It's not funny to me.

What difference does it make how much evidence is behind an idea before it becomes a theory?

How much evidence is behind the moon's Capture Theory?

A theory is a theory.

And for the record, and not to sound like a broken one, but Aristotle stunted the growth of science for almost 2000 years with his theory about earth, air, fire and water.

 

[AV1611VET]

And the salivating dog comparison would indicate you are operating from contempt, rather than from the basic respect needed for open discussion.

Then let's consider the discussion closed on my end, shall we?

 

[AV1611VET]

I didn't quite get the insult, can you clarify?

Clarify an insult?

I wasn't aware it was an insult ... actually I thought it was quite clever, since I mentioned salivation.

I don't have the same zeal as you guys -- that's what I'm saying.