Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Wrong, simply wrong. The problem is that you are making a false idol of the Bible and projecting again.
Science is respected because it works.
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.
Wrong, simply wrong. The problem is that you are making a false idol of the Bible and projecting again.Not everyone agrees with your assumption that scientist was the result of theory of evolution which came out of the heart of the scientist which is idolatry.
Bible doesn't deal with science since a lot of it is based on human opinion but it deals directly with heart of the scientist where all science come out of. Scientist (man) is the same now as they were in the past. Evolution is a modern day idol created by man's imagination.Wrong, simply wrong. The problem is that you are making a false idol of the Bible and projecting again.
Science is respected because it works.
Bible doesn't deal with science since a lot of it is based on human opinion but it deals directly with heart of the scientist where all science come out of. Scientist (man) is the same now as they were in the past. Evolution is a modern day idol created by man's imagination.
Technology works while science is constantly has to be corrected because it's based on human opinion.
Bible doesn't deal with science since a lot of it is based on human opinion but it deals directly with heart of the scientist where all science come out of. Scientist (man) is the same now as they were in the past. Evolution is a modern day idol created by man's imagination.
Technology works while science is constantly has to be corrected because it's based on human opinion.
You are on the jury in a trial of a murder. Evidence is presented where in your opinion the defendant is guilty then suddenly one piece of evidence turn the4 tables and you realize the defendant was framed. Evidence doesn't interpret itself which is why the court has juries. The evidence is not what changed.Science is based on evidence, not on opinion.
I never claimed I relied on the Bible for my science as science has to have a foundation from which it rests upon. If you know anything about the history of science you would know men in the past used to based science on that view as well. The Bible doesn't deal with science that is constantly changing but the heart of scientist which all science come from. I'm honest about my worldview in which my scientific views rest upon. Your views rested upon evolution as truth. It's Dawkin's religious views that cause him to assume design found in nature is an illusion. Intelligent Design goes against his faith.Still wrong. You should not be relying on the Bible for your science. That is your flaw.
You certainly don't rely on actual science. Yes, the Bible used to play a role in man's beliefs. But as time went by they found that it was not a reliable source when read literally, need I remind you of Galileo?I never claimed I relied on the Bible for my science as science has to have a foundation from which it rests upon. If you know anything about the history of science you would know men in the past used to based science on that view as well. The Bible doesn't deal with science that is constantly changing but the heart of scientist which all science come from. I'm honest about my worldview in which my scientific views rest upon. Your views rested upon evolution as truth. It's Dawkin's religious views that cause him to assume design found in nature is an illusion. Intelligent Design goes against his faith.
Guess what? my views also rested upon evidence and it only supports creation / ID.You certainly don't rely on actual science. Yes, the Bible used to play a role in man's beliefs. But as time went by they found that it was not a reliable source when read literally, need I remind you of Galileo?
And no, the Bible does not deal in science any way at all. And now you have claimed that you rely on the Bible. And no, my views don't rest upon "evolution as truth". My views rest simply upon evidence and the scientific evidence supports evolution and only evolution. Quite often creationists get cause and effect reversed.
Nope, you don't even know what evidence is. Or did you forget how all of the creationists here failed that challenge?Guess what? my views also rested upon evidence and it only supports creation / ID.
We have a monopoly on scientific evidence. Of course that is only the fault of creationists. Do you know what scientific evidence is?So now you think you got a monopoly on evidence?
I think you are in denial. All evidence has to be interpreted by a human being. Pride of man cause him to think he has a monopoly on evidence, truth and science.We have a monopoly on scientific evidence. Of course that is only the fault of creationists. Do you know what scientific evidence is?
Nope, there is a specific definition of scientific evidence. Your side has none because it will not follow the scientific method. I am not saying that they could not have any. The fact is that the few competent scientists that you have are afraid of putting their ideas in such a form that they could have scientific evidence.I think you are in denial. All evidence has to be interpreted by a human being. Pride of man cause him to think he has a monopoly on evidence, truth and science.
All science has to have a foundation which can't be proven by science. Your foundation (religion) is evolution.Nope, there is a specific definition of scientific evidence. Your side has none because it will not follow the scientific method. I am not saying that they could not have any. The fact is that the few competent scientists that you have are afraid of putting their ideas in such a form that they could have scientific evidence.
I am more than happy to go over this topic with you.
Wrong try again. The foundation of science, which is not a religion, please quite projecting, is not evolution. Evolution is a result of science. You are getting cause and effect reversed again.All science has to have a foundation which can't be proven by science. Your foundation (religion) is evolution.
What does it take for an animal to become a scientist? As long as you don't know your own heart there is little need to talk about evidence.Wrong try again. The foundation of science, which is not a religion, please quite projecting, is not evolution. Evolution is a result of science. You are getting cause and effect reversed again.
I thought that you wanted to discuss that nature of evidence? Or is that still to scary of a subject?
Perhaps I should have put in a sarcasm disclaimer.
Poe's Law was formulated by Nathan Poe in August 2005. The law emerged at the Creation & Evolution forum on the website Christianforums.com. Like most such places, it had seen a large number of creationist parody postings. These were usually followed by at least one user starting a flame war (a series of angry and offensive personal attacks) thinking it was a serious post and taking it at face value. Nathan Poe summarized this pattern in his original formulation of the law: “”Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake it for the genuine article.”
More nonsense on your part. I must run for now so take your time on your next answer.What does it take for an animal to become a scientist? As long as you don't know your own heart there is little need to talk about evidence.
Guess what? my views also rested upon evidence and it only supports creation / ID.
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?