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.
And here you go with the "all or nothing" fallacy. If science can't provide ALL the answers, then it must be completely useless!I know what you said.
I take it then that you believe Thalidomide didn't pass all its tests?
When the children showed up?
They were a day late and a dollar short with that, weren't they?
But I take it it passed enough tests that it was given the green light?
Are you telling me you would have been on Frances Kelsey's side and called for even more testing?
That Post 425 can take a hike.
Your Post 425 was clear enough:And here you go with the "all or nothing" fallacy. If science can't provide ALL the answers, then it must be completely useless!
Thalidomide was testable, it faced the testing, and it passed.Something testable. If it is testable and it can face the testing and pass, then I will accept it.
Let's do that, before you say something else that can take a hike.It's tired, AV. How about you take a look at the thread title and try to keep on topic for once, okay?
it passed some tests, and it FAILED others.Your Post 425 was clear enough:
Thalidomide was testable, it faced the testing, and it passed.
According to you, you would have accepted it.
Now you seem to be backtracking.
Your attempts to derail the thread can take a hike.Let's do that, before you say something else that can take a hike.
Now you know why I always ask:it passed some tests, and it FAILED others.
How many tries did it take religious belief to show it?Now you know why I always ask:
"After how many tries?"
YEC is not a scientific theory.Now, can you get back to the topic?
I agree.History is not Science. Science is not History. The earth was created 6000 years ago - that is a historical statement.
Creationism does not belong in any class room. It's not history or science. It's religion.I agree.
Creationism belongs in history class, not science class.
Yes, it does. It belongs in history class.Creationism does not belong in any class room.
I disagree. It's history.It's not history or science.
Then it belongs in religion class, doesn't it?It's religion.
History is not Science. Science is not History.
The earth was created 6000 years ago - that is a historical statement.
Would two testaments .. in writing ... do?If you want to make a historical claim you'll need historical records.
It cannot be tested because it is a religious belief and science cannot be used to confirm or reject a religious belief. On the other hand religious beliefs cannot be used to confirm or reject scientific conclusions.Something testable. If it is testable and it can face the testing and pass, then I will accept it.
I don't recall any instances when I haven't welcomed correction of my errors. Certainly I shall dispute an assertion that I am in error if I see no error, but if the error is apparent, or can be shown to be real, then - yes, I welcome the correction. Frankly, to not accept corrections would be stupid of me. It would hamper self improvement and make me look foolish. Why would I want to do that? Answer, I wouldn't. (If you can find any instance where I have not welcomed having my errors pointed on the forum please draw them to my attention, so I can take the related lesson on board.)Always?
I understand many theologians dispute any literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. Indeed, insisting upon a literal interpretation could be seen as an insult to the authors, who captured the aural traditions of the Hebrews in such moving and poetic fashion, delivering an awesome creation story to their future and our present.Book of Genesis
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?