10 Best Evidence for Creation and a Young Earth
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
Evolution doesn't change "facts" at all: it isn't a "fact", it's a theory
Now you understand.
I’m not sure you understand the word 'theory' in this context, a scientific context, rather than a layman context.
-
It might be easy for you to talk big against God right now. But some day, when you will be standing before him soon, you will be utterly terrified. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 1:7). Better to fear Him now, than later when there is nothing that can save you.
I will not. God can do nothing since it doesn't exist, nor any other gods or demons or whatever. And if he does exist HE will be utterly terrified for Hell hath no fury like a rational bad temeperd atheist who lived an entire life dominated by religious sycophants who maimed, killed and stomped on civil liberties to honor an extraplanar dictator.
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver When I was six, there were no ones and zeroes - only zeroes. And not all of them worked. -- Ravi Bhavnani
-
Oh my good LORD! (not) where had I been? I am now truly convinced that the Bible is the world's most accurate book. If thrown in over a short distance to someone's head :cool:
-
It might be easy for you to talk big against God right now. But some day, when you will be standing before him soon, you will be utterly terrified. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 1:7). Better to fear Him now, than later when there is nothing that can save you.
-
Oh my good LORD! (not) where had I been? I am now truly convinced that the Bible is the world's most accurate book. If thrown in over a short distance to someone's head :cool:
-
2 or 3 idiots peer reviewing a piece of toilet paper does not make it fact Evolution changes "facts" every few weeks. Would you rather base your eternal security on something that changes every few weeks, or something that has held strong for over 2000 years? If you could put your money in a bank that changed names as fast as evolution theory, or one that has existed for 2000 years, which would you pick?
PradeepGaggandeep wrote:
Evolution changes "facts" every few weeks.
I do find it very weird that people who only believe in science will openly admit that it is a flawed method, meaning that it changes often, and they find that wonderful about it. I do agree that it is wonderful that science improves upon itself but if I am given the choice between a method that is admittedly flawed vs. one that has proven truth, why would I pick the flawed one? Weird.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Would you rather bet your life on a medicine that has been rigorously blind tested and proven to work on the disease you suffer from, or visit your witch doctor so he can shake a stick at you and chant? The latter is the older medical treatment that has existed for probably tens of thousands of years... Evolution doesn't change "facts" at all: it isn't a "fact", it's a theory which explains and predicted extremely well changes we can and have seen happening in a population. Being a theory it is of course open to replacement if a better theory comes along and explains and predicts things better. And as for "something that has held strong for over 2000 years?" I would suggest you check your "facts" there as well unless you are reading it in the original paleo-Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, or selected as "correct" by the papal Council of Carthage in 397AD (except for the Deuterocanonical books which were removed from the King James version in 1611 of course).
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
OriginalGriff wrote:
Would you rather bet your life on a medicine that has been rigorously blind tested and proven to work
This is probably the worst example you could have chosen. You know very well that every year there are lawsuits that come out "if you ever took this drug, ..." because medicine is a very new technology compared to how long the world has been around. It is constantly being proven to have major side effects.
OriginalGriff wrote:
The latter is the older medical treatment that has existed for probably tens of thousands of years...
I'm not sure why you don't seem to understand what you just wrote. You would rather take the brand new technology that has known deadly side-effects over the one that has been around for 1000s of years?! :wtf: :wtf: :doh:
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
I’m not sure you understand the word 'theory' in this context, a scientific context, rather than a layman context.
-
I admire your tenacity.:thumbsup: For me, trying to argue with a closed illogical mind is just an exercise in frustration and futility.:mad:
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
Would you rather bet your life on a medicine that has been rigorously blind tested and proven to work
This is probably the worst example you could have chosen. You know very well that every year there are lawsuits that come out "if you ever took this drug, ..." because medicine is a very new technology compared to how long the world has been around. It is constantly being proven to have major side effects.
OriginalGriff wrote:
The latter is the older medical treatment that has existed for probably tens of thousands of years...
I'm not sure why you don't seem to understand what you just wrote. You would rather take the brand new technology that has known deadly side-effects over the one that has been around for 1000s of years?! :wtf: :wtf: :doh:
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
:D For the same reason that I prefer to cook a souffle in a fan oven than on a open fire... ;)
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
I’m not sure you understand the word 'theory' in this context, a scientific context, rather than a layman context.
Some people seem to be incapable of understanding the meaning of the word theory in a scientific context. They assume that it must mean guess, because the concept of words having different meanings in different contexts is too difficult to grasp. See the reply immediately above mine, for example. :doh:
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
:D For the same reason that I prefer to cook a souffle in a fan oven than on a open fire... ;)
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
OriginalGriff wrote:
For the same reason that I prefer to cook a souffle in a fan oven than on a open fire
So, a fan oven has proven deadly side effects when used according to prescription like medicine does? No, therefore, it is a failed analogy.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
For the same reason that I prefer to cook a souffle in a fan oven than on a open fire
So, a fan oven has proven deadly side effects when used according to prescription like medicine does? No, therefore, it is a failed analogy.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
a fan oven has proven deadly side effects
Damn right! It can chop your hair right up when you try to gas yourself! :laugh:
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
RyanDev wrote:
a fan oven has proven deadly side effects
Damn right! It can chop your hair right up when you try to gas yourself! :laugh:
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
PradeepGaggandeep wrote:
Evolution changes "facts" every few weeks.
I do find it very weird that people who only believe in science will openly admit that it is a flawed method, meaning that it changes often, and they find that wonderful about it. I do agree that it is wonderful that science improves upon itself but if I am given the choice between a method that is admittedly flawed vs. one that has proven truth, why would I pick the flawed one? Weird.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
given the choice between a method that is admittedly flawed vs. one that has proven truth
Of course, by "proven truth", you mean "other people who follow the same religion say it's true, so it must be true". * :rolleyes: I'd rather pick the option that leaves itself open to improvement as new evidence is discovered. The alternative - setting out an absolute unalterable "truth" which never adapts to new evidence - seems particularly illogical. I accept that some people find it comforting to be told what to think, and to never have to adapt to new facts. But that doesn't give them the right to force others to accept their "truth" - particularly not when they can't even agree on what that "truth" is to begin with. * And no, before you try to make the analogy, that's not the same as science. With religion, you're told "the answer is 42 because I said so, now stop asking questions". With science, you have access to the evidence and the reasoning behind the conclusion, and you're actively encouraged to question and challenge it.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
RyanDev wrote:
given the choice between a method that is admittedly flawed vs. one that has proven truth
Of course, by "proven truth", you mean "other people who follow the same religion say it's true, so it must be true". * :rolleyes: I'd rather pick the option that leaves itself open to improvement as new evidence is discovered. The alternative - setting out an absolute unalterable "truth" which never adapts to new evidence - seems particularly illogical. I accept that some people find it comforting to be told what to think, and to never have to adapt to new facts. But that doesn't give them the right to force others to accept their "truth" - particularly not when they can't even agree on what that "truth" is to begin with. * And no, before you try to make the analogy, that's not the same as science. With religion, you're told "the answer is 42 because I said so, now stop asking questions". With science, you have access to the evidence and the reasoning behind the conclusion, and you're actively encouraged to question and challenge it.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
Of course, by "proven truth", you mean "other people who follow the same religion say it's true, so it must be true".
Nope.
Richard Deeming wrote:
I accept that some people find it comforting to be told what to think, and to never have to adapt to new facts.
I don't know what experience you have with religions, but no religion that I am familiar with fits that description.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
Of course, by "proven truth", you mean "other people who follow the same religion say it's true, so it must be true".
Nope.
Richard Deeming wrote:
I accept that some people find it comforting to be told what to think, and to never have to adapt to new facts.
I don't know what experience you have with religions, but no religion that I am familiar with fits that description.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
Nope.
OK then - where's your proof?
RyanDev wrote:
no religion that I am familiar with fits that description
So you're saying that religions do adapt to new facts? That, in fact, they are a "flawed method", rather than a "proven truth"? :rolleyes:
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
RyanDev wrote:
Nope.
OK then - where's your proof?
RyanDev wrote:
no religion that I am familiar with fits that description
So you're saying that religions do adapt to new facts? That, in fact, they are a "flawed method", rather than a "proven truth"? :rolleyes:
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
where's your proof?
For what specifically?
Richard Deeming wrote:
So you're saying that religions do adapt to new facts?
Yep, I learned from science that pluto is no longer a planet, and then it was, and then I'm not sure. And my religion never told me what to believe about it.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
where's your proof?
For what specifically?
Richard Deeming wrote:
So you're saying that religions do adapt to new facts?
Yep, I learned from science that pluto is no longer a planet, and then it was, and then I'm not sure. And my religion never told me what to believe about it.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
For what specifically?
The "proven truth" you cited 45 minutes ago. :rolleyes:
RyanDev wrote:
Yep, I learned from science that pluto is no longer a planet, and then it was, and then I'm not sure.
Any fool knows Pluto[^] is a dog. :laugh:
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
A theory is a theory is a theory. It's a guess. Educated yes, but still a guess.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
No, it's not a guess. That's just silly talk. It is a rational, logical explanation of observed fact which merely lacks a complete proof usually by dint of inaccessibility of repeatable experimental evidence. It may be flawed, it may contain errors, but it is nowhere near as flimsy as a guess. Admittedly anyone who tells you that the theory of evolution by natural selection is a complete, indisputable, factual and historically accurate account of the creation and development of life on Earth is either deluded to the point of hubris or a charlatan. But anyone who claims that the account in Genesis represents a reasonable alternative is just an idiot not least because it as plain as the nose on your face that the writers and redactors of that account never intended it to be one. The Genesis accounts (for there are quite clearly at least two, entirely different) are guesses, not theories, and until the madness of the late 19th Century rejection of Darwin nobody really ever thought otherwise.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
