transitional species

[mathclub]

Many or much of what we read in the Bible Science is able to support. So it is not really an issue the few things that Science has not produced any evidence for.

These 2 sentences show so many forms of flawed and incorrect thinking it is really quite an achievement.

First of all it is not up to science to support anything. It is up to science to find the truth, and to tell us what there is reasonable evidence to believe. And as that evidence changes, our beliefs should be open to change. It is showing through that you are accepting science that you believes backs up your current beliefs, and ignoring the rest of it. That is the most unscientific approach you could ever take, and totally self defeating if you are looking to find out the truth (as science does). So really, you are not interested in discovering the truth. You are interested in confirming what you already believe.

The bible does contain many true and factual things. But we know that these things are true through scientific research and evidence, NOT because they are in the bible.

And then lastly, you claim it is 'not an issue' for the things science has not proven, which is a huge logical fallacy. Every claim needs to be considered independantly. What other claims were made with it are irrelevant. I could write a book full of factual information, and then put in one line about how I own a pet dragon, and the fact that the rest of the book is true does NOT make my claim about the dragon true.

 

[Jamin4422]

These 2 sentences show so many forms of flawed and incorrect thinking it is really quite an achievement.

I ignored everything you wrote after this. If your going to start off with this sort of a insult then there is no reason to write the rest of the post.

 

[Tiberius]

But it is true. You can't say, "Well, it's been right about these things, therefore it must be right about all things."

 

[mathclub]

I ignored everything you wrote after this. If your going to start off with this sort of a insult then there is no reason to write the rest of the post.

the word you are looking for is 'read', not 'write'. I write things more so that other people will read them and learn to identify these types of flawed logic. We had all let them slide, because we are so used to hearing them from so many people, but I felt it was worth point out. So it was worth it for me to write, whether you choose to read it or not.

And it wasn't an insult. Your thinking on this topic is flawed, and I pointed that out and then clearly demonstrated why. I never called you stupid or an idiot or anything else insulting.

stop being so precious

 

[mathclub]

But it is true. You can't say, "Well, it's been right about these things, therefore it must be right about all things."

otherwise I could get a textbook of historical facts and put 'there is no such thing as god' into one of the chapters, and by his logic that would also be a fact, given everything else in the book is true.


the same type of flawed thinking applies with with how people like that approach science as well. He already has shown this by mentioning Francis Collins. Because Francis Collins is a good scientist and has done a lot of great work on the human genome, therefore that somehow supports (in his head) that Francis Collins believes in god so therefore God must be true and if Collins believes in creation or whatever then that must also be true as well. And his work on the genome somehow validates any unproven creation beliefs, lol.

NO matter who the person is, each claim must be independantly assessed based on the evidence. I like Richard Dawkins a lot, but imo he was absolutely 100% wrong on the whole elevator-gate issue, and showed poor logic and reasons in what he wrote regarding that. As smart as Dawkins is, he clearly got that one wrong, and just because he is right on almost everything else doesn't change that.

 

[Jamin4422]

Is that how he did it? he took the water, used it to irrigate the vines, then picked the grapes, crushed them, let it all ferment, and that's how he turned the water into wine?

The point I was making is that it is NOT impossible to turn water into wine.

"22 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; or else the new wine bursts the wineskins, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But new wine must be put into new wineskins.”

Jesus performed a miracle. He is showing us the way to receive eternal life. In a way that a child can understand. If you do not believe in eternal life, then you do not accept the lesson that Jesus has for you to learn in this.

 

[mathclub]

The point I was making is that it is NOT impossible to turn water into wine.

"22 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; or else the new wine bursts the wineskins, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But new wine must be put into new wineskins.”

Jesus performed a miracle. He is showing us the way to receive eternal life. In a way that a child can understand. If you do not believe in eternal life, then you do not accept the lesson that Jesus has for you to learn in this.

but it is impossible to do it the way it was claimed Jesus did it.

 

[RickG]

The point I was making is that it is NOT impossible to turn water into wine.

I know, I've done it myself.

 

[Tiberius]

The point I was making is that it is NOT impossible to turn water into wine.

"22 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; or else the new wine bursts the wineskins, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But new wine must be put into new wineskins.”

Jesus performed a miracle. He is showing us the way to receive eternal life. In a way that a child can understand. If you do not believe in eternal life, then you do not accept the lesson that Jesus has for you to learn in this.

Oh, I know it can be done. It takes a long time, but it can be done.

Did Jesus do it that way? No. he Dumbledored it, didn't he?

 

[mathclub]

Oh, I know it can be done. It takes a long time, but it can be done.

Did Jesus do it that way? No. he Dumbledored it, didn't he?

i think jamin just dumbledored himself with his own illogical and inconsistent arguments