To all athiests out there: bring it on

[AV1611VET]

When scientists disagree, methodologies are applied, and corrections are made.

Is that why we have seven different theories as to how we got our moon?

Tell me, how many religion/denomination/sects are there?

Some say 38,000.

And every single one of them believe: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.

So if the similarities don't mean anything to scientific methodists, why should the differences?

In short, your point means nothing.

 

[SkyWriting]

.

 

[Davian]

Is that why we have seven different theories as to how we got our moon?

What is wrong with multiple theories? When new evidence arrives, methodology will be applied.

Can we not land a spacecraft on a moon of Saturn using Newton's laws?

Some say 38,000.

And every single one of them believe: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.

You think that every single religion believes "IN THE BEGINNING, GOD"?

lol.

So if the similarities don't mean anything to scientific methodists, why should the differences?

Historically, how have religionists resolved their differences?

In short, your point means nothing.

Welcome back, AV.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is wrong with multiple theories?

I thought you said methodologies were applied and corrections made?

In that case, they'd better hurry with their corrections.

These moon theories are beginning to pile up.

When new evidence arrives, methodology will be applied.

And corrections made ... right?

You think that every single religion believes "IN THE BEGINNING, GOD"?

Did I not stipulate the 38,000 or so Christian sects?

Historically, how have religionists resolved their differences?

Who cares?

If the similarities don't mean anything, then don't preach to us about the differences.

 

[Davian]

I thought you said methodologies were applied and corrections made?

In that case, they'd better hurry with their corrections.

These moon theories are beginning to pile up.

Does this affect the price of milk?

And corrections made ... right?

Pending new information.

Did I not stipulate the 38,000 or so Christian sects?

Where did I single out Christianity in that post?

Who cares?

If the similarities don't mean anything, then don't preach to us about the differences.

All religionists cannot be right. They can, however, all be wrong.

 

[Strathos]

To any athiests or agnostics,
I challenge anyone who thinks that science disproves the bible. Because it doesn't, and I'm willing to back up that statement.

I agree!

Reply to this message if anyone thinks there is evidence for The Big Bang, evolution, or anything else that is anti-bible and anti-science

Ah darn, you were doing so well...

 

[AV1611VET]

Does this affect the price of milk?

No, but it most certainly means this doosey of a statement:

When scientists disagree, methodologies are applied, and corrections are made.

... can take a hike.

 

[Davian]

No, but it most certainly means this doosey of a statement:



... can take a hike.

Should not corrections be made, based on new information?

It's not religion, after all.

 

[Queller]

What idiot resurrected a 12-years-dead thread with no substantive new content?

Oh. I see. Why am I not surprised?

 

[Split Rock]

Why should I embrace evolution?

I'll just wait until Evolution theory is replaced by Creation theory.

(And since Creation theory is a contradiction in terms, I'll be waiting until the Rapture.)

Actually, buddy, you're too late. Evolution theory has already replaced creation theory. Creation theory isn't coming back again (unlike this thread which you brought back from the dead), just like the geocentric solar system model is never coming back.

As far as the rapture is concerned, I will predict that you will continue to wait and never witness it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution theory has already replaced creation theory.

Ain't no such thing as Creation theory, though.

A theory is predicated by evidence, and the creation week didn't generate any.

Thus the point of my post:

It ain't gonna happen; i.e., I'm not gonna embrace evolution -- ever.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Ain't no such thing as Creation theory, though.

That's correct, its more like a hypothesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's correct, its more like a hypothesis.

Or a contradiction in terms.

 

[Split Rock]

Ain't no such thing as Creation theory, though.

A theory is predicated by evidence, and the creation week didn't generate any.

Thus the point of my post:

It ain't gonna happen; i.e., I'm not gonna embrace evolution -- ever.

The original scientific theory was creationism:
A. A "vital force" was required for life
B. Life was created; species were created
C. The geology of the earth was mostly shaped by a global flood
D. The earth was thousands of years old, not billions.

Keep in mind, this was not a scientific theory in the modern sense... nevertheless, it was replaced by modern theories in geology and biology, including evolution.

 

[Split Rock]

Or a contradiction in terms.

Nowadays, yes.

 

[AV1611VET]

The original scientific theory was creationism:
A. A "vital force" was required for life
B. Life was created; species were created
C. The geology of the earth was mostly shaped by a global flood
D. The earth was thousands of years old, not billions.

Keep in mind, this was not a scientific theory in the modern sense... nevertheless, it was replaced by modern theories in geology and biology, including evolution.

What on earth does the Flood have to do with the creation week?

If 'the original scientific theory was creationism,' then scientific theory is more shipwrecked than I thought it was.

 

[Split Rock]

What on earth does the Flood have to do with the creation week?

If 'the original scientific theory was creationism,' then scientific theory is more shipwrecked than I thought it was.

All of these are included in modern creationism, even if you like to pretend otherwise. You can ignore that part if you like... the rest still stands as the scientific theory of creation, which was tested in the 1700-1800s and was falsified. As, I indicated, it is not a scientific theory by today's standards.

 

[AV1611VET]

All of these are included in modern creationism, even if you like to pretend otherwise. You can ignore that part if you like... the rest still stands as the scientific theory of creation, which was tested in the 1700-1800s and was falsified. As, I indicated, it is not a scientific theory by today's standards.

So why do you still discuss it today, as if it means something?

 

[Split Rock]

So why do you still discuss it today, as if it means something?

Only because you claimed evolution theory will be superseded by creation theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

Only because you claimed evolution theory will be superseded by creation theory.

Rocky, I was being melodramatic.

It's like saying: When heck freezes over.

Evolution theory will never be superseded by Creation theory; thus my point that I will never embrace evolution.