What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[VirOptimus]

Yes, that is how it works.

Tell someone that Jesus walked on water, and he can -- not necessarily will, but can -- tell you that that would violate buoyancy laws.

Tell someone that the ex nihilo creation events during the creation week raised the level of mass/energy in the universe from zero to its current level today, and you just might get a lecture on the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Tell someone that the universe was created on 23 October 4004 BC, and you might get a lecture on the Big Bang and/or deep time.

And the list can go on and on.

At some point, you have to tell science to take a hike.

Thanks for the QED.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks for the QED.

Here's something else I'll QED:

Science isn't just content to draw lines on paper and connect the dots.

Science goes overboard in the area of changing basic terms to theirs, which only ends up confusing itself.

My favorite example is when science calls miracles "magic," which stunts the conversation.

Science has tricks up its sleeve and, as I said, there's a point when you either have to tell science to take a hike or, as you said, agree to disagree.

 

[VirOptimus]

Here's something else I'll QED:

Science isn't just content to draw lines on paper and connect the dots.

Science goes overboard in the area of changing basic terms to theirs, which only ends up confusing itself.

My favorite example is when science calls miracles "magic," which stunts the conversation.

Science has tricks up its sleeve and, as I said, there's a point when you either have to tell science to take a hike or, as you said, agree to disagree.

Science is a method to understand physical reality.

Its not an entity that has agency.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is a method to understand physical reality.

Its not an entity that has agency.

Look at the title of this thread, then read the OP.

It appeals to DNA to make its point.

But in Phred's [Do You Have Parents?] thread, I appealed to DNA, and pitabread needed clarification!

Science can take a hike, and take its slick attempts at muddying the waters with it.

 

[VirOptimus]

Look at the title of this thread, then read the OP.

It appeals to DNA to make its point.

But in Phred's [Do You Have Parents?] thread, I appealed to DNA, and pitabread needed clarification!

Science can take a hike, and take its slick attempts at muddying the waters with it.

As I said, thanks for the QED.

 

[DamianWarS]

I think that what happens in science, is that it discovers how something was done. Which may allow you to say: 'Yeah, that's how God did it. That's the process He used.' And we're both happy.

But, if you start first and make a claim that you know how God did something and it doesn't match what science tells us could have happened naturally, then we have a problem. And we have to agree to disagree.

sure, in the vacuum of science, science is never wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

As I said, thanks for the QED.

Why do you suppose it is that those who appeal to science over the Bible, usually end up ridiculing God's children?

Ken Ham is this, Kent Hovind is that.

And even organizations that dare speak for God get ridiculed.

This one is a classic:

Guess where I drove by last night.

 

[Bradskii]

sure, in the vacuum of science, science is never wrong.

If by 'the vacuum of science' you mean that it is only concerned with the natural world then you are exactly right. But exactly wrong when you say it's never wrong. It's often wrong. But it is self correcting.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's often wrong. But it is self correcting.

I'd say something here, but cry babies would probably report me.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I'd say something here, but cry babies would probably report me.

You're safe - creationists rarely report other creationists.

 

[VirOptimus]

Why do you suppose it is that those who appeal to science over the Bible, usually end up ridiculing God's children?

Ken Ham is this, Kent Hovind is that.

And even organizations that dare speak for God get ridiculed.

This one is a classic:

Guess where I drove by last night.

This is incredibly funny.

 

[Subduction Zone]

if there are versions of deities that are based in this space-time continuum (STC), like for example the FSM, then it is possible for science to disprove them. the concept of competing gods is not sustainable and "God" eventually demands one all-powerful that preexists all things, is the source of all things, has no beginning or end, and is unchanging and when I refer to God it is those characteristics I invoke.

If there is a God regardless what I or 1000 other people think of him God exists separate from these beliefs and it's a moot point that 1000 people think of God differently. 1000 scientists may have different versions of the big bang theory but varied versions do not negate the event and if the big bang happened it happened separate from these varied versions and it only happened one way so either only one version is right or none of them are fully correct (or maybe they are all right in the context of a multiverse). Either God is or he is not but 1000 varied ideas of God doesn't negate him or define him and to suggest it does is just silly.

And you misunderstood the argument. There may be a God. There may not be one. No one can seem to find any reliable evidence for a God or even a need for one. The point was that different people believe in different versions of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We must have about ten different moons then.

And two Plutos.

Nope. You definitely did not understand the argument. Just because someone believes in something does not make it real. In fact many people (ahem) have false beliefs but refuse to drop them.

 

[AV1611VET]

No one can seem to find any reliable evidence for a God ...

Merry Christmas!

... or even a need for one.

There's an old saying that says otherwise:

There are no atheists in foxholes.

 

[Bradskii]

Merry Christmas!There's an old saying that says otherwise:

There are no atheists in foxholes.

You're reading what one of them wrote right now. I've had a couple of occasions where I honestly thought I was going to die. With enough time to think about making a deal with anyone who might be able to help.

Didn't happen.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just because someone believes in something does not make it real.

Unless it was real before it was believed in.

And in that case, their refusal to believe in it makes them wrong.

Remember Planet 9 from outer space?

Just because some believe it is no longer [cue John Lennon] "number nine" [/cue John Lennon], doesn't mean it is no longer number nine.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're reading what one of them wrote right now. I've had a couple of occasions where I honestly thought I was going to die. With enough time to think about making a deal with anyone who might be able to help.

Didn't happen.

You're still here, aren't you?

We call that "prevenient grace."

Your family might call it, "answered prayer."

I suppose academia calls it, "Living on borrowed time."

Or some zoologists call it, "nine lives."

There by the grace of God go I.

 

[DamianWarS]

And you misunderstood the argument. There may be a God. There may not be one. No one can seem to find any reliable evidence for a God or even a need for one. The point was that different people believe in different versions of God.

you'll have to fill me in on what argument you are presenting here. if not to build a case against the existence of God then what is the goal behind saying people believe in different versions of God? people certainly do believe in different versions of God. But that's not an argument, that's a statement.

 

[Ophiolite]

Ken Ham is this, Kent Hovind is that.

At least that's something we all agree on.

 

[AV1611VET]

At least that's something we all agree on.

Thanks for the QED.