Search results

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created. The old thread automatically closed is here: "Why doesnt creationism need any data?"

You only just recently found that out? aww, wasnt ignorance so much more blissful? The petroleum geologist in my family just shakes his head at that lunacy, he doesnt use it to punch holes in the wall. But then he's German, not Aussie. and maybe they are a more restrained race.

Whenyou dont have data, attitude will do i guess. i think you have indirectly explained why you dont even care that not one data point supports creationism.

Oh my..... data does not, cannot change. that is one of your mistakes. its not a problem that science learns new things. or it is for your bible, since we find out more and more about how wrong some of it is (noahs fllood anyone) if "goes word" is always the same, how come its ok to eat...

interpret this too while at it.

It does seem clear to me too, tho we do notice that there is very wide disagreement among christians about whether it is to be taken literally. My father in law is a christian geologist, and he sure does not take it literally. But then anyone with a PhD in geology knows that it could not...

oh my. i have heard this before. No, really seriously you do not. You may very well have access to it, but you have not ever looked at much of it... have you? Do you have a degree in one of the natural sciences perhaps? i do want to be accurate here. The thing is that I have never...

Meaning that everything in the KJV is exactly and literally true?

You are funny. Sort of.

Confirmation bias? We do see a lot of it. My fav. example from personal experience was this girl, she picked up a leaf and said something like "oh look god made it with three parts, to represent the trinity". You are right, I should study the psychology of false beliefs,, it does sound very...

Well no i dont think I mean that sort of belief, or i dont think belief in Australia is an example of an unfounded one. There is after all a good deal of data, and no contrary evidence. But then i guess im quibbling, and basically agree. or maybe a creationist would like to say why zero data...

Does it matter? I am unaware of any data to support any idea taht could be labeled creationism.

Interesting concept, that false "data' is considered good enough. If you are presenting that you know enough psychology to explain it, then please go ahead.

None has ever been presented to support it. im curious why the believers dont need any. They'd surely need some before investing in a get rich scheme. Or if they are told their kid committed a crime. Or that the roof needs replacing. Why not for creationism?

sounds like it was an interesting forum! I dont see a lot of sense in name calling, but seems like an individual can be banned easily enough, and order kept that way. On the other hand, an open honest discussion is much harder to prevent, and shutting the whole thing down to stop further...

Well of course it is faith based, as there is a near complete lack of data. And the probability of someone's words being recorded verbatim many many years later is very low, sans supernatural intervention. but never mind that. So do you still think its impossible to falsify a theory about the...

this is your original statement... When I was growing up science said we know 3% of all there is to know. Now Science says we know 4.3% of all there is to know. So I guess we are all making progress. They say the same for Archeology and the scientific recorded history that verifys the...

Even if some rather demented person made this odd satement to students it hardly makes it an accurate representation of anything about science. Other than the spelling of the word, 'science".

I have the law firm of Smith and Wesson to assist me if someone tries to rape me. And i am fortunate to live in a country that respects my right to self defense. There is no disproportionate response other than an inadequate one.

which, the long con or the 136th place, or both.