- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,977
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
I only have authority over myself
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.
It is only dangerous, if you are in a position of authority, that attempts to use the same, to influence others.
Besides that, believe as you will.
The source material has changed though. This is why there are so many different religious beliefs both around the world today and throughout history.
Religious beliefs are not static. They change over time as cultures change.
That is premised on your prior brainwashing and ignorance of the material - these are clearly demonstrated in your meandering musings and refusal to correct your errors on here. You "interpret" evidence solely to fit your religious narrative, even when doing so makes you look like a complete fool. The whole aorta/gut sending 'messages' to the larynx directly to make vocalizations is a case in point.I look at pretty much the same evidence that you look at. I just see creation with purposeful design.And your super high IQ has not qualms about accepting that - with no evidence at all - at face value.
Because it shows that people like you can be driven by propaganda and lies, as long as they come from your preferred 'authorities' or as long as they fit your prejudices. You reject/dismiss/ignore evidence based SOLELY on whether or not it props up your middle eastern myth fantasies, even trivially so. And such an attitude, in my view can be dangerous.Why is that dangerous?
Excessive breaking up posts is rude. And when corrected learn from your mistakes. Do you think that you can do that? If you can then may be we can have a discussion.Hey hey my dear
Please excuse my poor performance. I will try to be more coherent in the future.
Please excuse me, i would love to remedy this and i am curious. What gross error do you refer to?
I do not know, you engaged me my dear and from what i can tell you are quite familiar with me - Im flattered you read my posts by the way.
Did you engage me to speak about your feelings? Why did you enegage me?
Please excuse me, again...
In relation to your reply.
"if one wants to claim that such a hand exists the burden of proof is upon that person"
1. What kind of proof would you like?
2. How is evolution a natural event?
I think that should be clear enough. I got my mum to proof read it and she said it was c+ material. Anways your obviously quite intelligent - and smarter than me - so there should be no issue in replying to 2 questions that are clear and straight to the point.
Cheers
Probably will not be responding to you any more until/unless you make more outlandish, absurdly naive 'scientific' claims.
You clearly misinterpret the evidence. Look at my sig. There is a definition of scientific evidence there. Does that seem to be a reasonable definition? It is not mine, I only copied and pasted from another source. I can find other science based sources that give pretty much the same definition and I have not found one scientist that disagrees with it to date.I look at pretty much the same evidence that you look at. I just see creation with purposeful design. Why is that dangerous?
You clearly misinterpret the evidence. Look at my sig. There is a definition of scientific evidence there. Does that seem to be a reasonable definition? It is not mine, I only copied and pasted from another source. I can find other science based sources that give pretty much the same definition and I have not found one scientist that disagrees with it to date.
What? Where did that come from? You claimed that you thought that the evidence could support creationism, spoiler alert it does not. I was asking about the definition in my signature. Not about the illustration in my avatar.I have no problem with tectonic plate movements. They exist in real time. What's your point?
What? Where did that come from? You claimed that you thought that the evidence could support creationism, spoiler alert it does not. I was asking about the definition in my signature. Not about the illustration in my avatar.
That is not the sig either. What sort of device are you using? And you should have realized your errors from context alone.Sorry but "Regular Member" doesn't suggest anything 'scientific' to me, as does your avatar.
That is not the sig either. What sort of device are you using? And you should have realized your errors from context alone.
Wrong, this is my sig:Sorry, SZ is your signature, but it suggests plate tectonics to me, nothing else.
I'm betting OWG has his display of signatures turned-off and forgot that there was such a thing. I have mine turned off. So when anybody refers to a sig, I have to click on their name and then on the Information tab. On a mobile device, there's even a bit more drilling.Wrong, this is my sig:
"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."
Just as yours is "Alpha male (retired)".
Wrong, this is my sig:
"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."
Just as yours is "Alpha male (retired)".
I'm betting OWG has his display of signatures turned-off and forgot that there was such a thing. I have mine turned off. So when anybody refers to a sig, I have to click on their name and then on the Information tab. On a mobile device, there's even a bit more drilling.
But, it is strange that anyone who's been a member for 13 years doesn't seem to know what a signature even is.
How would you know?I don't know lots of things that aren't particularly interesting to me.
How would you know?
How would you know?
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?