Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Those who know, know. But he's an old member who was banned. Keeps creating socks, sometimes posing as a Christian, or a woman, or a Christian who's a woman.
Wow, really? Sheesh. I knew he made money, but I didn't know he rolled like that. And he's an idiot; imagine how much cheese you could squeeze if you actually had some expertise to back up your assertions.
It's a small wonder biologists aren't jumping ship left and right; there's money to be made.
Yeah, Comfort's Living Waters takes in several million per year.
Yep, there's money to be made as a professional Creationist.
"Living Water's Finances 2006
For 2006 Living Waters Publications sold 4.5 million dollars worth of merchandise that only cost the organization 1.9 million (a 137% markup). Living waters also took in $736,472 in donations. This gave the org a net revenue of 3.3 million to be added to the 1.4 million it had in the bank at the beginning of the year.
The expenditures for 2006 list fund raising receiving 1.2%, program services receiving 24.5%, and managerial and general receiving 74.1% of the 3 million spent. IMHO, if you are running a nonprofit and only 24% of your expenditures are going to the programs and services the org was created to address, and 74% are going to Managerial and General expenses, you're doin' it wrong."
The Raytractors - Ray Comfort's Detractors: The Piety of Ray - A Little Web Sleuthing
This is an error. You are provably wrong. Your problem, and most creationists problem is that you do not know what evidence is.
Now I can prove to you that there is no scientific evidence for creationism. A fact that all honest creationists that understand the nature of evidence agree to.
he's actually a book seller and an evangelist primarily, selling curriculum and tracts for evangelism at rock bottom prices.
I would say creationism is the third or fourth thing on His list of to does.
Yes, I was saved, and I left.
go ahead
Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.
So you are now spamming the boards with deceit. That might be against the rules here. Once again that verse does not apply in this debate. You can't use the Bible to defend the Bible especially since it is a flawed book.
No problem.
You should realize that most of what creationists do is simply denial. They deny evidence when it is shown to them.
Science used to have the same problem. Scientists who did not believe other scientists would deny the others evidence. This quickly leads to squabbling and no advances. So science came up with a very effective definition of scientific evidence.
Scientific evidence is simply evidence that supports or counters a scientific theory or hypothesis:
Scientific evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Since the evidence presented by scientists supports their theories it is by definition scientific evidence. It cannot be denied.
There can be evidence against evolution, though I know of none. If you can find evidence that cannot be fit into the theory that is evidence against evolution. For example the much vaunted "Cambrian rabbit". Evolution would have no explanation of such a fossil and would be evidence against the idea.
The reason there is no scientific evidence for creation is that creationists will not devise a testable hypothesis that describes why we observe the world or aspects of the world as we do. For example they have no explanation for the fossil record that is not easily debunked. Without a hypothesis you cannot have evidence by definition.
who told you is was one book? It's many books, many authors, many languages and cultures. It's just abridged. You can quote one book to support another without being a circular argument, most forget that.
I am still waiting.
You know.....
for the evidence?
First you must understand what evidence is.
I could show you individual pieces, or blocks of evidence. But if you do not understand what is and what is not evidence you will make the mistake of denying it.
For example to date all fossils found fit into the evolutionary paradigm. They are all evidence for evolution.
So I could show you Lucy's skeleton. Since it was found to be of an appropriate age it fits as evidence for evolution:
imagine a court case where the defendant is telling the court, hey here is what evidence is. That would be contempt, because it would be a waste of time.
here it's just nonsequitor, doesn't follow the conversation.
I could post a bunch of stuff on evidence too, but it would be a word filler to fill my lack of argument.
seems this is the case with you,
right?
imagine a court case where the defendant is telling the court, hey here is what evidence is. That would be contempt, because it would be a waste of time.
here it's just nonsequitor, doesn't follow the conversation.
I could post a bunch of stuff on evidence too, but it would be a word filler to fill my lack of argument.
seems this is the case with you,
right?
I am not the one defining evidence. The definition is the accepted definition of scientific evidence. You are the one who is trying to change the definition.
And there is a reason that science goes by their definition of "scientific evidence". It works.
The computer or phone or pad you are using right now was developed from science that used the scientific definition of evidence. Even Einstein disagreed, at one time, with much of the science that your computer is based upon. He later accepted it partially because of the concept of scientific evidence.
We have the evidence. You don't. And it is not our fault, it is the fault of creation "scientists" who cannot think of a method to test their beliefs. No, let me rephrase that, they cannot think of a method to test their beliefs that do not show them to be in error.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?