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.
Noahs ark could use some fundingQuite a lot in some areas. Send these guys a donation. They'll appreciate it.
Make a Donation — Funding Cancer Research | Cure Cancer
Noahs ark could use some funding
Quite a lot in some areas.
This is the part of the forum where one discusses or debates to learn whose ideas are right and why. There are countless Christians that accept evolution. The few creation "scientists" out there tend to belong to organizations such as Answers in Genesis where they have to swear not to follow the scientific method.This is a clarification worth making, though the rest of your post doesn't relate to what I said. I don't conflate the two. Nor do I use the label "creationist" for myself. I used to, but I don't anymore because of the potential misunderstandings - though it doesn't seem to help that I don't call myself a creationist.
Regardless, my thought experiment involves an appeal to Christian public influencers. Some would be closer to accepting the idea than others.
I would think this is a universal dictum. Don't teach your kids false things.
Are you interested in building bridges or are you with @Occams Barber that my motives are just too suspect and it's not worth the risk? It is kind of an odd thing, isn't it? That I would approach a scientist and say, "I don't agree with you on all things about evolutionary science, but I'm going to fund your work and leave you the freedom to do it in the way you deem best. Just be aware of my position before you accept the funds."
You may wonder why would someone do that? It just boggles the mind ... or at least the minds in this forum.
I am glad to meet a Christian half way. I do not demand that they drop their belief in God nor am I going to take their belief up. But if they teach clearly false ideas I will oppose that.
1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with xScience and religion should not mix, that leads to bad science and even worse theology.
1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own
As a rule the less one knows the easier it is to wina debate against scienceAs science is a description of physical reality going against it is a losing position.
As science is a description of physical reality going against it is a losing position.
As a rule the less one knows the easier it is to win a debate against science
One of the problems with this is that you did not word what you do correctly. It is not a matter of "Bible says'. It is a matter of what you think that the "Bible says". If one is very literalistic one should be a Flat Earther too by the standards that you list.1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own
Incorrect about Nebraska Man. He was never well accepted by scientists. An amateur scientist made an error that was never well accepted and was corrected in a rather short time.I take it that's how Pluto got to be our 9th planet.
Clyde Tombaugh didn't know about all those other TNOs out there.
Ditto for Nebraska Man.
Science didn't know it was the tooth of a peccary lying in the ground.
If one is very literalistic one should be a Flat Earther too by the standards that you list.
That you dont understand science is only on you.Science goes against science all the time.
One minute Pluto is our 9th planet, the next minute it isn't.
One minute Nebraska Man is a missing link, the next minute it isn't.
Science pwns itself.
Ditto for Nebraska Man.
Science didn't know it was the tooth of a peccary lying in the ground.
I was careful how I worded that, because I knew what was coming.Incorrect about Nebraska Man. He was never well accepted by scientists. An amateur scientist made an error that was never well accepted and was corrected in a rather short time.
"Literalistic" describes a person's approach to the Bible. But it means essentially the same thing. The Bible only literally describes the Earth as Flat in word and deed. It is your assumption that it means round since that is a belief strongly supported by secular evidence.It's telling that you said "very literalistic," and not just "literal," to make your point.
I have a feeling you know the difference.
Once again, you abused the word "science" that is all. We know that it is a favorite tactic of yours. Meanwhile you heavily rely on science just to post here.I was careful how I worded that, because I knew what was coming.
So are you saying that while that tooth was lying there in the ground ... untouched ... science knew it was the tooth of a peccary?
And by "science," I mean those who saw that tooth lying there.
That you dont understand science is only on you.
"Literalistic" describes a person's approach to the Bible. But it means essentially the same thing.
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?