God Made The World In Seven Days

[Subduction Zone]

It's a statement of faith, NOT a circular argument. Not knowing the first negates being able to compare it or call it something it is not.

Right<rolleyes> That is a very weak defense of a circular argument.

 

[Dizredux]

I said it PRODUCES evidence. The faith comes first. Those who never use it don't know that.

Yes it is, so debate the text in Genesis which IS the OP.

So you admit you purpose in posting here is to disrupt and cause strife. Noted.

Are you saying this as a moderator, a member or both? I think I need to know before responding to your comments.

Dizredux

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, the science itself does not do that, only people like atheists try to misuse it to do so.

Why would Christians hate to admit something that is NOT true? Making your point would be the norm, not continually offering to do so but never doing it. Go ahead and make you point with the verses you say you know.

Hey, why are you saying atheist like that? We aren't bad people.

 

[stan1953]

Strife, well, I wouldn't say that. If anything, he wants people to rethink their basis for their faith.

After 43+ years of being IN the faith, there is not much I haven't thought about. Every day proves my faith to be true. Every day produces evidence. WHY would I want to rethink Jesus? He was and is and is to come.

 

[PsychoSarah]

After 43+ years of being IN the faith, there is not much I haven't thought about. Every day proves my faith to be true. Every day produces evidence. WHY would I want to rethink Jesus? He was and is and is to come.

In general, not you specifically.

 

[stan1953]

Hey, why are you saying atheist like that? We aren't bad people.

I never said atheists were bad.

 

[stan1953]

In general, not you specifically.

Well, clearly it was directed at ME and MY ilk.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I never said atheists were bad.

That statement suggested insult. People often misuse information, personal views not much of a factor in committing that act except for the few who would go to the extremes to support their views, even with lies. Those caught in the act, regardless of position, are stripped of any awards or recognition they have and often never find work in the scientific community again.

 

[stan1953]

Are you saying this as a moderator, a member or both? I think I need to know before responding to your comments.
Dizredux

Moderators don't debate, they moderate, and usually NOT on forums they debate on. When a mod speaks as a MOD, they put their MOD hat ON.
Example;

MOD HAT ON

Infraction so and so

MOD HAT OFF

Hope this helps

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well, clearly it was directed at ME and MY ilk.

Of course rethinking religion is going to be directed at religious people.

 

[stan1953]

That statement suggested insult. People often misuse information, personal views not much of a factor in committing that act except for the few who would go to the extremes to support their views, even with lies. Those caught in the act, regardless of position, are stripped of any awards or recognition they have and often never find work in the scientific community again.

Nope...it was a statement of experience and fact.

I think you are naive about the so-called scientific community.
You should read up on how they castigate and try to ruin those who support "intelligent Design".

 

[stan1953]

Of course rethinking religion is going to be directed at religious people.

But should NOT be done in the manner that was used.

 

[PsychoSarah]

But should NOT be done in the manner that was used.

Probably not.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Nope...it was a statement of experience and fact.

I think you are naive about the so-called scientific community.
You should read up on how they castigate and try to ruin those who support "intelligent Design".

Hahaha you act as if these sorts of "attacks" are unique to religious or intelligent design positions. I guarantee you every theory in science has some opposition, it is just the nature of the field.

 

[Dizredux]

I think you are naive about the so-called scientific community.
You should read up on how they castigate and try to ruin those who support "intelligent Design".

You are correct in a few cases but what I mostly is scientists point out that ID is not science, at least not yet.

Dizredux

 

[Seipai]

Nope...it was a statement of experience and fact.

I think you are naive about the so-called scientific community.
You should read up on how they castigate and try to ruin those who support "intelligent Design".

You should look into the history of "Intelligent Design". If you watch the PBS show on the Dover trial you will see that the original widespread use of that term was merely an attempt to sneak creationism into public schools.

When an idea starts on a falsehood it tends to get hammered for that.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You should look into the history of "Intelligent Design". If you watch the PBS show on the Dover trial you will see that the original widespread use of that term was merely an attempt to sneak creationism into public schools.

When an idea starts on a falsehood it tends to get hammered for that.

I predict a storm is coming for this statement.

 

[RealityCheck]

Nope...it was a statement of experience and fact.

I think you are naive about the so-called scientific community.
You should read up on how they castigate and try to ruin those who support "intelligent Design".

Well, you want I.D. to be treated as science, it's going to be scrutinized just like every other scientific theory.

I.D., of course, is dead on arrival. It does not qualify as science right from the start.

 

[stan1953]

You are correct in a few cases but what I mostly is scientists point out that ID is not science, at least not yet.
Dizredux

The why do so many scientists and universities react to it adversely?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The why do so many scientists and universities react to it adversely?

Because creationists tried to illegally sneak it into the public school system.