- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,316
- 52,438
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
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.
I changed my answer.You've made that obvious over the years.
Without any facts getting in the way, that leaves nothing but yourself, doesn't it?
In all the studies I had to perform (as an undergrad; I claim no expertise, just some basic experience), my report on the results always had to include any weaknesses or flaws in my methods as well as areas that could be improved or areas that would need further study.
Yup --- as I have stated before --- science runs on circular logic as well.Instead of telling scientists how their science is wrong you might wish to attempt to convince the scientists. That will require science.
Romans 2:15b said:...and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;
The Bible.
Since I have declared myself "evidence-free", I decry evolution by declaring its antithesis: the Creation.
PREACH IT, THAUMATURGY!!! ---I really wanted to bold this and blow it up so everyone could see it. I want every creationist to know that science thrives precisely because the only science that is worth anything has, within it, the seeds of its own criticism!
Okay, I'll acquiesce.So lemme see here.
You get your facts from the Bible, yet you decree yourself "evidence free", so you don't think the Bible is a form of "evidence"?
Interesting.
So are you saying you believe the bible precisely because it shouldn't be believed as evidence of anything? I would like to better understand this.
Actually I think you do use evidence. Just that your evidence is the Bible. But you have to decree it to be "non-evidence" so people will not question it.
Yup --- as I have stated before --- science runs on circular logic as well.
Only science can confirm (or deny) science.
Okay, I'll acquiesce.
I do claim the Bible as evidence ---
But other than That...
Just another claim of yours that makes absolutely no sense to anyone but you. Just like proclaiming yourself "fact free," opps... "evidence free"... oh wait.... Non-Bible Evidence Free!"Heaven help us, though, if we should claim that the best interpreter of the Bible is the Bible Itself.
I'm in total agreement here --- that's why I use science's Antithesis to critique it.Let's put it this way, AV: Ignorance of science is not a valid critique of science.
Good analogy --- but more appropriate is imagining someone critiquing Dispensation Theology by using science to say it doesn't exist.Imagine if I were to critique "Dispensation Theology" by reliance only on Grimm's Fairy Tales and War and Peace.
Go for it --- but until you can build a machine that can do this:Ergo you are not "evidence free". And we can assess the value of your evidence.
... I'm not interested in your myopic assessments.2 Kings 6:17 said:And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.
Go for it --- but until you can build a machine that can do this:... I'm not interested in your myopic assessments.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them,
In the land of Mordor where the shadows lie.
Go for it --- but until you can build a machine that can do this:... I'm not interested in your myopic assessments.
Go for it --- but until you can build a machine that can do this:... I'm not interested in your myopic assessments.
Go for it --- but until you can build a machine that can do this:... I'm not interested in your myopic assessments.
I went back and checked.Practitioners of evolutionary philosophy and its associated fields, can never publicly admit to the fragility of the hypotheses and theories related to evolutionary concepts.Such admissions are career threatening, the evolutionary perspective will always be defended by those who rely on it , and derive not insubstantial incomes from its dissemination.
Such persons resent being awakened from their blissful stupor and will always distort, mock, slander and reject anything that may lie beyond the evolutionary worldview.
lol another Creationism VS. Evolution thread... just another pony and dog show to polarize the masses...
grow up..
lol another Creationism VS. Evolution thread... just another pony and dog show to polarize the masses...
grow up..
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?