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 your saying that this site:
Jerusalem 101 - Lessons Introducing Jerusalem
is known for lying?
evidence please?
I am talking about sites like this one.
Evolution News & Views
They are one of your favorite sources, and they continually lie. More importantly, the authors of the articles at those sites are not the scientists who did the actual science they are reporting on. Any honest scholar would go to the primary source, the peer reviewed paper written by the scientists who did the science.
Yep, I just checked out that site. At the top there is a question "What is Intelligent Design". They link was another puppet of the Discovery Toot, though a much more open puppet, and it had the wrong answer. As we know as shown by the Dover trial the correct answer is Intelligent Design is creationism dressed up in a cheap suit.
Grady
The problems is that if it cannot be measured in some way, science cannot deal with it.
How do we measure God? How do we measure the divine?
The divine foot in the door, so to speak, would be for you to find a way of measuring it. It doesn't mean that it can't be done but that no one to date has done it.
Good luck, I await your showing us the way.
I am not understanding what you mean by "admittedly wrong". Can you clarifiy what you mean?so then being admittedly wrong is better?
I am talking about sites like this one.
Evolution News & Views
They are one of your favorite sources, and they continually lie. More importantly, the authors of the articles at those sites are not the scientists who did the actual science they are reporting on. Any honest scholar would go to the primary source, the peer reviewed paper written by the scientists who did the science.
Dizredux
Grady I am not understanding what you mean by "admittedly wrong". Can you clarifiy what you mean?
Dizredux
we have talked about this befoe. but are you changing the bars yet again? secondly this is non sequitur. it doesn't follow the conversation. would you like me randomly to post all the peer reviews on id, or randomly ask why evolution should be empirical science without evidence of macro evolution? then stop jumping topics when they get uncommon . this is called changing the bars.
Yep, I just checked out that site. At the top there is a question "What is Intelligent Design". They link was another puppet of the Discovery Toot, though a much more open puppet, and it had the wrong answer. As we know as shown by the Dover trial the correct answer is Intelligent Design is creationism dressed up in a cheap suit.
lets see for one its changing the bars. 2- its non sequitur, it doest follow the conversation. 3-its an ad hominem which is attacking a source and not the argument of the source. 4-it's poisoning the well.5-its a red-herring- to distract from the original conversation.6- I guess it could be cosidered a genetic fallacy as its adress the origin of the source not the source. I think if this was baseball you and loudmouth would be heading back to the dugout. (strike three! plus!). I mean really is there a fallacy you didnt commit here? lets make an attempt at honesty please. after all it is a christian forum after all.
again yes, yes it is fallacy. It is poisoning the well and it is something that every juror must fight against to be objective in criminal behaviour.
Say that my sources (my websites linked to) were on trial, and they had one or two felonies, does that make them outright guilty during the current trial? Or any and all trials afterward? It may may them suspect, but it will not convict them of wrongdoing, especially if there is no evidence of wrongdoing. You would be a bad juror, or judge regarding the logic of the matter here.
Christian sources are not guilty of error, simply by being christian.
Non science articles are not wrong, simply because they are not science.
furthermore, religiously motivated archaeology is not invalid simply because of the religion.
I would be just as well saying that everything you say is wrong, because atheists/agnostics have been proven wrong in the past.
again it's not the way to do debate. Not the way to do law, not the way to do logic.
I await your response.
are you saying you disagree with evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin's statement regarding the "divine foot in the door"?
remember the end of the quote:
"we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.2
2Richard Lewontin, Billions and Billions of Demons, review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997, 31.
this proves that evolution is materialistically biased.
if you disagree with your own commentators, what does this tell you of the theory of evolution in general?
You insert belief and color evidence with it.Lewontin is saying that we don't insert God into science for the same reason that we don't insert evidence-planting ....
The religious nonsense of science doesn't fly in the real world. Think beyond the cult.... you and your creation sites had the infallible answers long before you did any science, long before you considered any of the physical evidence, etc. That's fine in the religious world .... and that's your business. It just doesn't fly in the science world.....
I see it as basically a conflict of interest, grady. You said it yourself ... the Bible is the inspired word of God and absolutely cannot be wrong. So, when it comes to scientific questions like the age of the earth & universe, history and origins of humans, you and your creation sites had the infallible answers long before you did any science, long before you considered any of the physical evidence, etc. That's fine in the religious world .... and that's your business. It just doesn't fly in the science world. There is no reason for me to even remotely consider sources like that for questions like these.
when was the last time I quoted a Bible verse on this thread? It seems to me you are logically out of ammo, so now you attack anything you can. It happens to be the religiouns of others. That is an ad hominem. Once again. (how many fallacies have you made now?- 6 or more?)
I'm not attacking your religion; I'm attacking your ability to objectively consider those scientific questions which may contradict your religious faith.
the tally is rising:
posts that storman norman has refused to answer:
you know nothing about my religion, do you even know if I am a Biblical Creationist, an ID'er, a GID'er or a combination? I doubt it.
so please, don't try to change the bars, yet once again.
besides it's interesting that you are touting science as your view, when macro evolution has yet to be observed, and with such, cannot be a theory or science!
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?