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.
So why should I believe a claim that has no supporting evidence?Why would we?
All those plants and animals and Adam & Eve are long gone, and their evidence long dried up.
As I said. I would suggest next time you go and read the conversation and if you have any questions, ask for clarification instead of just jumping in.Fair enough.
My apology.
I didn't understand what Aaron112 was saying.
So why should I believe a claim that has no supporting evidence?
So you won't stereotype science.
And there goes the irony metre for the thread.
My standards:
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
Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.
Academia's standards:
1. Ancient text says x, current science says x = go with x
2. Ancient text says x, current science says y = go with y
3. Ancient text says x, current science says ø = go with ø
4. Ancient text says ø, current science says x = go with x
5. Ancient text says ø, current science says ø = who cares?
Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Scientific Method to be contradicted.
The second part is counterfactual. Academia's standard would rather beMy standards:
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
Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.
Academia's standards:
1. Ancient text says x, current science says x = go with x
2. Ancient text says x, current science says y = go with y
3. Ancient text says x, current science says ø = go with ø
4. Ancient text says ø, current science says x = go with x
5. Ancient text says ø, current science says ø = who cares?
Prime directive: don't accept truth on authority or tradition. Try to study and evaluate the supporting evidence.Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Scientific Method to be contradicted.
The second part is counterfactual. Academia's standard would rather be
1. Ancient text says x, current science says x = study and evaluate x
2. Ancient text says x, current science says y = study and evaluate y
3. Ancient text says x, current science says ø = start a research project
4. Ancient text says ø, current science says x = study and evaluate x
5. Ancient text says ø, current science says ø = start a research project
Prime directive: don't accept truth on authority or tradition. Try to study and evaluate the supporting evidence.
Nope. Scientists evaluate their data during their research and before submission. The it is reevaluated during the peer review before publication. After publication readers will evaluaye and comment, during presentations at congresses debates will follow.So science first says y, THEN they study and evaluate y?
And also how we got rid of it. You just don't seem to get over it. That science admits and corrects it mistakes displays it's grandeur, and not it's weakness.Isn't that how we got Hesperopithecus Haroldcookii?
And also how we got rid of it. You just don't seem to get over it. That science admits and corrects it mistakes displays it's grandeur, and not it's weakness.
Your request makes no sense. A result, data point or conclusion can be contradicted. A method can be used or discarded.So go ahead and contradict the Scientific Method?
Nope, that's the christian god's way: first cursing humanity, and then offering "salvation" or "redemption" through the sacrifice of his son.Lights fires, then puts them out.
Go ahead. People then would mock you , say you're wrong, ignore you, and maybe stone you?I would argue that this rewritten history is not actually history...
Go ahead. People then would mock you , say you're wrong, ignore you, and maybe stone you?
It is good to pray, but realize they ALREADY go THAT far!
Stereotype science as what, exactly? A discipline that doesn't just accept whatever claims are made?So you won't stereotype science.
Yes, they might indeed do that.Go ahead. People then would mock you , say you're wrong, ignore you, and maybe stone you?
Because AV1611VET has a world view from which al evidence has been removed. The absence of evidence is the big proof that he is right.Stereotype science as what, exactly? A discipline that doesn't just accept whatever claims are made?
Why do you act as though asking for evidence before a claim is accepted is a bad thing?
You never addressed the question of a very rapid history. The first Galaxy did not just appear. It expanded from the size of a grain of sand to the size of a Galaxy in a blink of an eye. According to science, but you do not accept Science so it must not be true. You can not get something from something. You have to get somthing from nothing. Even though there is no evidence that nothing has ever existed.I define Embedded Age Creation as: maturity without history.
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?