10 Best Evidence for Creation and a Young Earth
-
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!
-
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
Richard Deeming wrote:
The "proven truth" you cited 45 minutes ago.
That is a generic statement, not a single item. But to speed this along, I'll prove to you that God exists as soon as you can prove to me that you love your wife and your children.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
The "proven truth" you cited 45 minutes ago.
That is a generic statement, not a single item. But to speed this along, I'll prove to you that God exists as soon as you can prove to me that you love your wife and your children.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
I'll prove to you that God exists as soon as you can prove to me that you love your wife and your children.
That's fair, since they're all fictional beings. :laugh:
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
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!
9082365 wrote:
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.
Like I said, an educated guess. ;)
9082365 wrote:
it as plain as the nose on your face that the writers and redactors of that account never intended it to be one.
I've never heard that one before. I'd like to hear more.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
RyanDev wrote:
I'll prove to you that God exists as soon as you can prove to me that you love your wife and your children.
That's fair, since they're all fictional beings. :laugh:
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
since they're all fictional beings.
Dang, that explains a lot about you. ;P OK. Prove to me that you love your mom. Stop dodging the point.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. Falsifiable theories are nothing to base your eternal security on. There are people screaming and flopping around in hell right now who fell for fables and theories instead of the truth of Christ. And they won't get out, ever. God is going to torture them in there FOREVER.
PradeepGaggandeep wrote:
There are people screaming and flopping around in hell right now who fell for fables and theories instead of the truth of Christ. And they won't get out, ever. God is going to torture them in there FOREVER.
God! I hope that's meant ironically.
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
since they're all fictional beings.
Dang, that explains a lot about you. ;P OK. Prove to me that you love your mom. Stop dodging the point.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
OK. Prove to me that you love your mom.
OK: give me a team of neuroscientists, a fully-equipped lab, and $1B/year. I'm sure we'll be able to identify the reactions in the brain associated with that emotion after a few decades. ;P
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
RyanDev wrote:
OK. Prove to me that you love your mom.
OK: give me a team of neuroscientists, a fully-equipped lab, and $1B/year. I'm sure we'll be able to identify the reactions in the brain associated with that emotion after a few decades. ;P
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
I'm sure we'll be able to identify the reactions in the brain associated with that emotion
That still would not be proof you love your mom. Since you keep dodging it, let me explain something that as you grow older you'll learn as well. You constantly live your life by faith. You put a key in the ignition having faith that your car will start. You do not have knowledge that it will start, it is a belief. You also believe or have faith that your employer will pay you if you work. Finding out that god exists is done through the same process. He will not appear to you and say "Hey, I am god." And if he did, you wouldn't believe it anyway. However, once you exercise your faith the proof of God is then given to you. The same way that exercising your faith by turning the car key turns into knowledge when your car does start, you can know as a proven fact that God is real and that He loves you. But you have to do work. It will not happen without you putting forth the effort. Therefore, it is your choice and no one can make you believe. Faith leads to knowledge but faith is an action word. You have to do something.
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
Richard Deeming wrote:
So you're saying that religions do adapt to new facts? That, in fact, they are a "flawed method", rather than a "proven truth"?
Well, they should be. If we theologians could only get fundamentalist Christians to read the Bible as the record of an experimental faith which hypothesises understandings of God only to have them fail in the harsh light of experience and history then refines and even totally reworks them which it is rather than as the cold, dead, immutable 'Word of God', we'd be laughing! Human beings sadly have little capacity to deal with a living, dynamic God, so much of Christianity has simply returned the risen Christ to the tomb where he's least dangerous by reinstating the very Pharisaism that he overturned. God is indeed dead in so many Christian churches and you don't have to look far to see who's holding the bloody knife!
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
I'm sure we'll be able to identify the reactions in the brain associated with that emotion
That still would not be proof you love your mom. Since you keep dodging it, let me explain something that as you grow older you'll learn as well. You constantly live your life by faith. You put a key in the ignition having faith that your car will start. You do not have knowledge that it will start, it is a belief. You also believe or have faith that your employer will pay you if you work. Finding out that god exists is done through the same process. He will not appear to you and say "Hey, I am god." And if he did, you wouldn't believe it anyway. However, once you exercise your faith the proof of God is then given to you. The same way that exercising your faith by turning the car key turns into knowledge when your car does start, you can know as a proven fact that God is real and that He loves you. But you have to do work. It will not happen without you putting forth the effort. Therefore, it is your choice and no one can make you believe. Faith leads to knowledge but faith is an action word. You have to do something.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
I have "faith" that my car will probably start based on years of evidence. I also know that sometimes it won't start, and I'll have to call someone who knows what they're doing to come and fix it. I have "faith" that my employer will pay me based on years of evidence. I also know that it's possible that there will come a time when he can't, and I'll have to look for another job. I have yet to see an explanation of how to "exercise your faith" where the first step isn't "believe that [insert chosen deity here] exists". Your belief that your deity exists is not proof that he exists; my belief that he doesn't exist is not proof that he doesn't. :)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
I'm sure we'll be able to identify the reactions in the brain associated with that emotion
That still would not be proof you love your mom. Since you keep dodging it, let me explain something that as you grow older you'll learn as well. You constantly live your life by faith. You put a key in the ignition having faith that your car will start. You do not have knowledge that it will start, it is a belief. You also believe or have faith that your employer will pay you if you work. Finding out that god exists is done through the same process. He will not appear to you and say "Hey, I am god." And if he did, you wouldn't believe it anyway. However, once you exercise your faith the proof of God is then given to you. The same way that exercising your faith by turning the car key turns into knowledge when your car does start, you can know as a proven fact that God is real and that He loves you. But you have to do work. It will not happen without you putting forth the effort. Therefore, it is your choice and no one can make you believe. Faith leads to knowledge but faith is an action word. You have to do something.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
All well and good but totally off the point. Faith in God is not incompatible with the acceptance of scientific theories nor is the belief that the Bible is
Quote:
useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
a requirement to give it priority over actual observed fact when it comes to history or science. Faith requires a fool's wisdom, not an idiot's intelligence. It should enrich knowledge not deny it. Faith is not in anyway the antithesis of science unless you elect to make it so and the very second that you do so you relegate faith to just another gnosis and embrace a heresy. No religion which rejects science as a legitimate enterprise and normal expression of God's intentions for man's intelligence can survive long other than as a parody and ultimately a travesty of the faith it espouses increasingly extremist as it it folds ever more destructively in on itself. That is as evident in Westboro as it is in IS.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
-
Notice, you ignored this part "when used according to prescription." ;)
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
If "selective quotation" is good enough for the Sky Pixies Fanciers Club, it's good enough for me! :laugh:
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
I have "faith" that my car will probably start based on years of evidence. I also know that sometimes it won't start, and I'll have to call someone who knows what they're doing to come and fix it. I have "faith" that my employer will pay me based on years of evidence. I also know that it's possible that there will come a time when he can't, and I'll have to look for another job. I have yet to see an explanation of how to "exercise your faith" where the first step isn't "believe that [insert chosen deity here] exists". Your belief that your deity exists is not proof that he exists; my belief that he doesn't exist is not proof that he doesn't. :)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
I have "faith" that my car will probably start based on years of evidence. I also know that sometimes it won't start, and I'll have to call someone who knows what they're doing to come and fix it. I have "faith" that my employer will pay me based on years of evidence. I also know that it's possible that there will come a time when he can't, and I'll have to look for another job.
All correct. And if God behaved the same way you could not have complete faith, in other words, if the process ever failed you then you would lose faith. Just like after having a dead car battery you are probably a little hesitant the next times you start your car even after getting a new battery. God could not be god if he varied or was inconsistent.
Richard Deeming wrote:
I have yet to see an explanation of how to "exercise your faith" where the first step isn't "believe that [insert chosen deity here] exists".
Almost. You need to have a desire to know if he exists or not. A sincere desire.
Richard Deeming wrote:
Your belief that your deity exists is not proof that he exists;
I know that and have never claimed it was. It is my proof that he exists. And as I already explained, knowing that God exists comes from your choices and is a personal knowledge, just like you can't prove you love your mom, but yet you know that you do.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
All well and good but totally off the point. Faith in God is not incompatible with the acceptance of scientific theories nor is the belief that the Bible is
Quote:
useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
a requirement to give it priority over actual observed fact when it comes to history or science. Faith requires a fool's wisdom, not an idiot's intelligence. It should enrich knowledge not deny it. Faith is not in anyway the antithesis of science unless you elect to make it so and the very second that you do so you relegate faith to just another gnosis and embrace a heresy. No religion which rejects science as a legitimate enterprise and normal expression of God's intentions for man's intelligence can survive long other than as a parody and ultimately a travesty of the faith it espouses increasingly extremist as it it folds ever more destructively in on itself. That is as evident in Westboro as it is in IS.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
9082365 wrote:
but totally off the point.
Not at all. The point I was discussing with Richard was how to know that God exists. I know it is not the OP topic, but nevertheless, it was the topic we were discussing.
9082365 wrote:
It should enrich knowledge not deny it.
Faith based on something that is not true will fail.
9082365 wrote:
No religion which rejects science as a legitimate enterprise and normal expression of God's intentions for man's intelligence can survive long
I agree. Einstein was close when he said, "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
