Why do we want to teach our children science?

[Loudmouth]

The Bible has answers and solutions that Science does not have. It was after I tried everything Science had to offer that I turned to God for the answers and solutions that I was looking for. I had very high expectations for science but for me it turned out to be a lot of hype. They just could not deliver on what they said they could deliver on. Hawking says that he does not need God because science can solve his problems. For me Science does not do good enough to solve his problems. If he is happy then good for him. I am just saying science is not enough for me. I want more. I am looking for what God has to offer us above and beyond what Science can do for us.

So what are these solutions? You would think that after making such a grand claim you could present just one, but you didn't. Why is that?

 

[Coelo]

So what are these solutions? You would think that after making such a grand claim you could present just one, but you didn't. Why is that?

If Science could heal Hawking so he did not need Intel to speak or if he could get up and walk. That would be a solution. For me, for him to have to live the way he lives, that is not a solution. I thought the point I was trying to make was pretty obvious.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science can take a hike.

Somehow I don't think you're qualified to make that statement.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

I like how people first start out saying there is no evidence for a global flood; then, when someone agrees, switches to saying there is evidence of no global flood.

Actually it's both, they are two sides of the same coin. There is no evidence tgat the flood happened and literal mountains of evidence that it didn't. I try and always point out both to avoid just this kind of confusion.

In short, they say:

1. No evidence of a global flood.
2. Evidence of no global flood.

As if they're covering all the bases.

Yup, all bases are covered, that's why it's well confirmed enough to be an historical fact that there was no recent global flood.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

The point that was being made though is: consensus of opinion.

If the consensus was as well supported with evidence as evolution is then thalidomide would be safe. You can't just isolate the opinion from the facts and testing. Thalidomide was not well tested and evolution is.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no evidence tgat the flood happened and literal mountains of evidence that it didn't.

I can faith those mountains of evidence back to where evolution says we came from.

Matthew 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the consensus was as well supported with evidence as evolution is then thalidomide would be safe. You can't just isolate the opinion from the facts and testing. Thalidomide was not well tested and evolution is.

And you can't just move the goalposts and expect me to agree.

The focus was on consensus.

If there was more to it, it should have been included in the post I responded to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We always here this from creationists, but they never come through with the evidence when asked. Strange thing is, the ice cores in both Greenland and Antarctica show no signs of any flood through that entire period. Even more strangely, the Egyptians were building their pyramids throughout that time period. Did they have to use snorkels?

Worse yet, ice floats in my world, I don't know about AV's.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can faith those mountains of evidence back to where evolution says we came from.

Matthew 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Fine, when you move a mountain we will believe you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Fine, when you move a mountain we will believe you.

No, you won't.

I've been moving your "mountains of evidence" here for years; and all it does is gender ridicule.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If Science could heal Hawking so he did not need Intel to speak or if he could get up and walk. That would be a solution.

And people will find a solution -- maybe not in Hawking's lifetime, but we already know more about ALS than we did when he was first diagnosed, and we'll know in the future.

You want instant results; science doesn't work that way.

For me, for him to have to live the way he lives, that is not a solution.

Nobody said it was.

I thought the point I was trying to make was pretty obvious.

So do you have a solution? Have you made even the slightest bit of progress towards finding one? If so, how?

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

And you can't just move the goalposts and expect me to agree.

The focus was on consensus.

If there was more to it, it should have been included in the post I responded to.

Well what is the consensus on the safety of Thalidomide now that there has been several decades of evidence?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I can faith those mountains of evidence back to where evolution says we came from.

You can faith yourself down the Rabbit Hole and straight to the Queen's croquet grounds, for all it matters.

Alas, you can't "faith" anything but yourself -- and some might call it "delude."

 

[AV1611VET]

Well what is the consensus on the safety of Thalidomide now that there has been several decades of evidence?

I'd say it's just as dangerous today, as it was 40 years ago -- unless they've made changes to it.

But for the record, here's the original conversation:

Actually gravity and evolution have basically as much scientific consensus as it is possible for a scientific theory to get.

So did Thalidomide.

I stand behind that answer too.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I stand behind that answer too.

Nice to see being shown wrong on several occasions hasn't stopped you from spouting the same old falsehoods.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can faith yourself down the Rabbit Hole and straight to the Queen's croquet grounds, for all it matters.

Nope -- ain't gonna happen, unless I take some of that scientifically-created LSD first.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

I'd say it's just as dangerous today, as it was 40 years ago -- unless they've made changes to it.

But for the record, here's the original conversation:

I stand behind that answer too.

Ok so in context. What is the present consensus on Thalidomide after 60 years of testing, the present consensus on evolution after a century and a half of testing and the consensus on gravity after three centuries of testing?

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok so in context. What is the present consensus on Thalidomide after 60 years of testing, the present consensus on evolution after a century and a half of testing and the consensus on gravity after three centuries of testing?

That they've been testing long enough?

 

[BarryDesborough]

That they've been testing long enough?

There is no comparison. Evolution is not a commercial drug, pushed by pharmaceutical companies.

You could equally compare the thalidomide case with Bibolatry. They both involve/involved reading text. The reports on the efficacy and safety of thalidomide were written text. The Bible is written text. Reading text leads to disastrous results.

 

[Shemjaza]

Heresy! Victoria in south-eastern Australia is the Garden State, it's on their license plates. Proof positive.

I thought we were "On the move"?