• 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.

Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟166,950.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
"inquiring mind, post: 72571746, member: 394017"]Yes, well-supported


“No contradiction” does not equal “proof of it.”

Actually, since no one has been able to refute that evidence [and creationists have tried both honestly and (mainly) dishonestly for the past 150 years] evolution is mostly accepted as a fact
So yes, it’s still only a belief until someone can prove without a doubt that we’re distant cousins to a hickory-nut or something like that.
So you don’t like hickory nuts now ? Actually, you are related to plants . Cousin Violet is currently growing on my balcony
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I'm not exactly sure what you're about here either, so I'm just gonna let it go.
I think you know. You're here about the Bible, not about the existence of God or the Gospel of Christ. Trying to make the theory of evolution into atheism is nothing but shopworn propaganda which we have seen many times before--it no longer fools anybody.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟166,950.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Is what you said relevant to what speedwell asked you? We haven’t observed Pluto’s complete orbit yet . Despite that we know it goes around the sun. Evolution is a process which has been observed many times. with fossil organisms mostly while we weren’t looking and occasionally with living organisms while we were looking
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Did you miss my comment on that? Of course any experiment dealing with the natural is a scientific experimenter.

It is not.

Science is the subject here, remember?

Then why are you ignoring all the scientific aspects of science?
Like what theories are and how they can only be supported and disproven, but never proven?

Honestly I don't think I need to even explain that the use of the one term "experiment" was all that was needed to subject, and if you wan to waist your time picking due to the lack any other defense, that's up to you, but why waist ours?

It's not about the word "experiment". It's about the setup and purpose thereof.

You should really read up a bit on how science is done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
True


True

I've explained two or three times now that I'm not arguing science at all. I like science -- science is good "structured research and analysis," but it's not conclusive on the Theory of Evolution, therefore evolution, as a whole and despite a lot of evidence, is still only a "belief" you adhere to... again, not a 100% proven scientific fact. If evolution is not yet a fact, what else can it be but a "belief" that is at odds with another "belief"?

Evolution theory is one of the most solid theories in all of science.

Also, theories stay theories. Theories explain facts. They never become facts.

Germ theory of desease
Atomic theory
Plate tectonic theory
Theory of relativity
...

Please take 45 seconds to read the following page:
www.notjustatheory.com/

To quote the last line of that article:
Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Yes, well-supported
“No contradiction” does not equal “proof of it.”

Again, theories are never "proven". They can only be supported.

So yes, it’s still only a belief until someone can prove without a doubt that we’re distant cousins to a hickory-nut or something like that.

That species share common ancestors, is a genetic fact, actually. A fact that requires an explanation.

The theory of evolution provides this explanation. It explains the mechanism, the process, by which one species can give rise to other (sub)species. How bio-diversity comes about.

But again: common ancestry of species, is a genetic fact. A fact, explained by a theory that details how changes occur over generations (descend with modification + natural selection).

Nice try with “well- evidenced”, but I haven’t said there is an alternative with regard to science – all I have said, or intended to say,” is that Creationism and Evolutionism are two beliefs.

Which is incorrect. They are not on the same level AT ALL.

One is a faith-based religious belief with zero explanatory power.
The other is an evidence-based, extremely robust, scientific theory with enormous explanatory power.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
If by stating you know what my response would be, you mean "No way is that enough evidence to believe we all evolved, not even close to proof of evolution."

No, I don't mean that at all, I meant that you will hand wave, obfuscate. I didn't mention "proof that we all evolved".

Only the extremely gullible would buy that as proof. It is no more than opinion that proves evolution, and if I were a scientist, I've be a little less reckless with my "evidence" and the conclusions I drew from it. Huge stretch

It seems that you spectacularly missed the point of my post, no doubt deliberately so you could continue your trolling.

I'll try again anyway as I've got nothing better to do for the time being, maybe you could try and address what I posted this time.

If you consider observing paper burning as "proof" that paper burns, would you not consider observing a species evolve as "proof" of evolution? (Please notice that I didn't say the "theory of evolution" or "common descent").
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,458
3,994
47
✟1,113,108.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Does a “theory” have an orbit?
No, but astronomers have theories about mass, gravity and orbital velocity. They have measurements to estimate Pluto's eccentricity based on those theories, so from all that they can work out Pluto's orbit... all seems like science to me, but no one has ever seen one complete revolution stone the sun.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
It is no more than opinion that proves evolution, and if I were a scientist, I've be a little less reckless with my "evidence" and the conclusions I drew from it. Huge stretch

If you were an actual scientist, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because then you would actually understand what a scientific theory is (and what it is not...).
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I’ll try my best to not be an offensive one-line snark by just offering a response of “please read my answer again,” but go further and bold the relevant parts of my answer for more clarity, understanding that these conversations move along quickly and things can be overlooked. I will say that where I state “nothing proven” in regard to evolution I’m referring to the theory as a whole. There have been many significant finds in the study involved with the evolutionist’s belief.

[Actually, I’ve seen very little science, or indisputable fact, in this argument. What I have seen is a lot of apparent naturalism (only a belief itself) opposing God’s supernatural creation and interaction. I’m defending a “belief” (not arguing against science) and that’s all evolutionists have, a “belief”, nothing proven. It’s “belief” against “belief” really. Yet, evolutionists try to hamstring me to the scientific method, which is only a framework of their “belief” by which they claim to be champions of scientific thought... so, I ask for it.]
Ah, so you are dismissing any science presented to you by re-defining it as belief, and then implying that you don't have to offer science because you are defending a belief.. Clever. Cowardly, but clever.

In that case, here is some science -

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Ah, so you are dismissing any science presented to you by re-defining it as belief, and then implying that you don't have to offer science because you are defending a belief.. Clever. Cowardly, but clever.

In that case, here is some science -

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."

LOL, Keep trying! Has any creationist ever responded to that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

Roseonathorn

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 27, 2017
1,311
695
48
Finland
✟176,729.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What miracles? How do you know they were not just coincidences?

My grandfather was healed from incurable cancer but the other Miracle I feel pretty much gagged to even breath about. It goes against many peoples beliefsystems. However God can do miracles today just as He did in bibletimes. But for the sake of hinting into the direction of it, if You ever google and see youtube videos about others that had an experience of being claimed as dead, these persons had a reality of Jesus and lost and found relatives in heaven and then brought back to life again, how on earth do You think they would ever doubt what miracles God can do? We have a spirit, a soul and a body and we do not quit feeling positive things inside once we leave our body. We still have a mind. But God is God over His own creation and God over his own laws and is free to do what He wants just as Jesus said, it is ok to heal someone at sabbath. If we by the way prayed for something while we were alive, there is a chance that he listens and things start to happen even though we might have lost our life for a brief moment. We should remember that this life we have is for the eternity, it does not end with a gravestone. We often come short of what God has in mind for us together with Him. Still I do not know why the question of why, who or how the world was created makes such trouble for people in believing in God. I would assume the sinful lusts, pride, hatred, unforgiveness, love of money, gluttony, love of self, houseloan, safety, family and such even some good respectable values today would be the biggest obstacle to not wanting to be fully committed to God if necessary. It is said where Your love is there is Your heart. But it is also said that God knows what we need and will provide if we follow Him. Maybe that is a challenge.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
LOL, Keep trying! Has any creationist ever responded to that?
Not really, at least not in a meaningful way. I recently had one ask if we were related to mice and he ignored everything else.
But I like to re-post that whenever I come across one claiming that there is no evidence. Other folks do a nice job regarding fossil stuff, I re-post this.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
My grandfather was healed from incurable cancer

There are many many cases of spontaneous remission of cancer, and these typically occur in conjunction with chemotherapy and other treatments. Because of the strong influence of the placebo effect, doctors will often support the beliefs of patients so as to keep the effect going - so a religious patient claims prayers healed me, the doctor, despite remembering the thousands of dollars of conventional treatments employed, will agree with them.

So without real verifiable documentation, I do not accept such claims, sorry.

As an interesting aside, some years ago I read a mathematical analysis of religious 'healings' of certain diseases and cancers at Lourdes versus spontaneous remission rates of those same diseases and there was actually a slightly higher rate of spontaneous remissions as compared to miraculous healings. I should try to find that study.
but the other Miracle I feel pretty much gagged to even breath about. It goes against many peoples beliefsystems.

What a coincidence.
However God can do miracles today just as He did in bibletimes.


Question begging.
But for the sake of hinting into the direction of it, if You ever google and see youtube videos about others that had an experience of being claimed as dead, these persons had a reality of Jesus and lost and found relatives in heaven and then brought back to life again, how on earth do You think they would ever doubt what miracles God can do?

People fool themselves all the time.

There is a youtube video of a woman seeing a rainbow in her sprinkler's water and declares that such things never used to happen and blames it on the government.

I put exceptionally little stock in such Witnessing/testimonial videos as there is no corroboration. Add to that things like the fact that pilots and astronauts have reported near-death-experience type effects from losing bloodflow to their brains.

And worse - if these folks see Jesus in their NDEs and that is taken as proof that Jesus is real, what about Hindu NDEs?
Do they prove that the Hindu gods are real?
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: bhillyard
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,282.00
Faith
Atheist
My grandfather was healed from incurable cancer...
This is rare, but not unheard of. The problem with calling it a 'miracle' (assuming that means something known to be medically or biologically impossible) is that a diagnosis/prognosis 'incurable' is a probabilistic inference based on the medical education and limited personal experience of the doctor(s) involved; so, to a degree, it's a confident guess.

Oncologists have become increasingly aware that cancers of all kinds behave in many different ways - some grow to a certain point, then stop; some grow and spread throughout the body until they kill; some grow and spread for a while then regress.

There are now concerns that widespread scanning for cancers will lead to, and is causing, many unnecessary treatments (e.g. operations or chemotherapy) to get rid of cancers that might well be less harmful than the treatment (this was already known of some prostate cancers). For example, here's a recent article raising exactly this issue: How medicine got too good for its own good - some of it's behind a paywall, so here's a relevant section:
New Scientist said:
Vanishing cancers
H. Gilbert Welch, physician and academic researcher, professor at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine:
“I was taught in medical school that once a cancer was formed, it was going to relentlessly progress to metastatic cancer,” says Welch. “We now know it’s a whole lot more complex than that.” Cancers can grow quickly and slowly; some even vanish on their own. There are the bird cancers, which have already spread before tests notice them; the rabbit cancers, which can be treated before they spread if caught early; and the turtle cancers, which never spread. The problem, says Welch, is “there’s a whole lot of turtles out there”, but doctors and patients alike want to treat all cancers.
So we now know that the variability of cancer progress means that quite a few cancer sufferers won't be inconvenienced by their cancer, and a very small number of cancer sufferers may spontaneously recover. Does that still make it a miracle? If so, will it still be a miracle when we know the biological reason why these cancers spontaneously regress?

Is 'miracle' just a name for a very rare beneficial event? if so, would winning the lottery twice count?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Roseonathorn

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 27, 2017
1,311
695
48
Finland
✟176,729.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There are many many cases of spontaneous remission of cancer, and these typically occur in conjunction with chemotherapy and other treatments. Because of the strong influence of the placebo effect, doctors will often support the beliefs of patients so as to keep the effect going - so a religious patient claims prayers healed me, the doctor, despite remembering the thousands of dollars of conventional treatments employed, will agree with them.

So without real verifiable documentation, I do not accept such claims, sorry.

As an interesting aside, some years ago I read a mathematical analysis of religious 'healings' of certain diseases and cancers at Lourdes versus spontaneous remission rates of those same diseases and there was actually a slightly higher rate of spontaneous remissions as compared to miraculous healings. I should try to find that study.


What a coincidence.



Question begging.


People fool themselves all the time.

There is a youtube video of a woman seeing a rainbow in her sprinkler's water and declares that such things never used to happen and blames it on the government.

I put exceptionally little stock in such Witnessing/testimonial videos as there is no corroboration. Add to that things like the fact that pilots and astronauts have reported near-death-experience type effects from losing bloodflow to their brains.

And worse - if these folks see Jesus in their NDEs and that is taken as proof that Jesus is real, what about Hindu NDEs?
Do they prove that the Hindu gods are real?

There are many many cases of spontaneous remission of cancer, and these typically occur in conjunction with chemotherapy and other treatments. Because of the strong influence of the placebo effect, doctors will often support the beliefs of patients so as to keep the effect going - so a religious patient claims prayers healed me, the doctor, despite remembering the thousands of dollars of conventional treatments employed, will agree with them.

So without real verifiable documentation, I do not accept such claims, sorry.

As an interesting aside, some years ago I read a mathematical analysis of religious 'healings' of certain diseases and cancers at Lourdes versus spontaneous remission rates of those same diseases and there was actually a slightly higher rate of spontaneous remissions as compared to miraculous healings. I should try to find that study.


What a coincidence.



Question begging.


People fool themselves all the time.

There is a youtube video of a woman seeing a rainbow in her sprinkler's water and declares that such things never used to happen and blames it on the government.

I put exceptionally little stock in such Witnessing/testimonial videos as there is no corroboration. Add to that things like the fact that pilots and astronauts have reported near-death-experience type effects from losing bloodflow to their brains.

And worse - if these folks see Jesus in their NDEs and that is taken as proof that Jesus is real, what about Hindu NDEs?
Do they prove that the Hindu gods are real?

I agree I have not paperdocuments on this site, I only answered someones question on why I believe what I believe and got ridiculed. After reading the NDE of the Hindus I must admit they did not seem so sunny and bright and I am more than convinced that their gods could be demons masquerading as false gods that need their spirits for some extra energy or something. That is only my thought and it will be further ridiculed I assume, but You can laugh yourself all redfaced, if that will brighten Your day. I think every person is partly shaped by our past but we can boldly change and challenge our future. If we choose to trust God He also starts to trust us more if He sees that we are serious and then it can get very interesting.
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,194
6,997
71
USA
✟585,424.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It is not.

Prove it

Then why are you ignoring all the scientific aspects of science?

You mean if I don't agree with you, you are going to make up some nonsense comment just like that one.

It's not about the word "experiment". It's about the setup and purpose thereof.

Back pedal. You made it about the word "experiment" not me.

You should really read up a bit on how science is done.

I see, the usual, "you don't understand science" because I disagree with you. LOL
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,194
6,997
71
USA
✟585,424.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If you were an actual scientist, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because then you would actually understand what a scientific theory is (and what it is not...).

More deflective excuses that add nothing to the subject.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.