- Joined
- Apr 2, 2010
- Messages
- 4,293
- Likes
- 3,145
Where are the intermediary links then?
There have been a number of significant finds in the past 20 years. Our understanding of evolution has also evolved.
I see what you've been doing now. You make false claims about what a poster is saying to create an argument with them. They respond. You make more false claims about what they said to continue the argument and get a response from them. They respond. Rinse and repeat. There's a word for this argumentive tactic. It has something to do with hay or straws, or something like that. But, straws are banned, at least in California. You were doing it with me and I just watched you do the same damn thing to goldielox1, twice. Get real.
This all came about because I said science is not some sort of religion. That obviously hit a nerve with both you and goldie and now you're both getting bent out of shape over evolution, atheism and other non-topics, talking about how bad science is and how we should all believe everything the Bible says instead.
Fail.
I'm confused...on one hand you said that "religious dogma does not equal scientific fact, which I agree with. Then you contradict your statement by stating that your religious origins myth of evolutionism is supported by science. Evolutionism is the most illogical and unscientific religious origins account I can think of. Since you refuse to state how a religious origins myth that contradicts all known laws of science is supported by science (1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, Biogenesis, Cause and Effect, Mathematics and Statistic) I can only conclude either you really hate science or you just don't know anything about science.
The Bible on the other hand is in fact a science book. How can I say that? Well it's easy one of the highest forms of evidence is eyewitness testimony, which is accepted in both courts of law as evidence, and for instance by those investigating an event such as a policeman trying to figure out how a wrecked car on the side of the road got there. The first thing he would do is ask for eyewitness accounts, which the Bible is full of. There is an eyewitness account of the creation of the heavens and the earth, the author himself not only witnessed it but documented it so that only a fool (atheist?) would deny the obvious that the universe was made by an intelligent mind. "The fool has said in his heart there is no God" despite all the evidence pointing to a Creator, is the same fool that would look in the mirror and miss the nose in front of his face.
The Bible on the other hand is in fact a science book. How can I say that? Well it's easy one of the highest forms of evidence is eyewitness testimony, which is accepted in both courts of law as evidence, and for instance by those investigating an event such as a policeman trying to figure out how a wrecked car on the side of the road got there. The first thing he would do is ask for eyewitness accounts, which the Bible is full of. There is an eyewitness account of the creation of the heavens and the earth, the author himself not only witnessed it but documented it so that only a fool (atheist?) would deny the obvious that the universe was made by an intelligent mind. "The fool has said in his heart there is no God" despite all the evidence pointing to a Creator, is the same fool that would look in the mirror and miss the nose in front of his face.
Evolution is supported by science. Biology, genetics, physics, geology, etc.
The Bible is not.
If you think, as you say, that "the Bible is in fact a science book" then you're even more confused than I thought.
Please also note that it is absolutely ridiculous to assume that, simply because someone is unwilling to accept the Bible as a science book, they must be atheist.
Your version of God is not the only version of God.
First statement: That has become obvious.
Second statement: That is not true. The evolutionary theory is full of holes and there are a multitude of scientists, of all types, who admit to it. Some are creationists, some are not, but they see the obvious problems. To be honest, L, many of your statements actually do reflect a bias towards an evolutionist religious viewpoint. And evolutionism is a religion. Just like global warmism or climatism, whatever you want to call it, based on religiously held beliefs, rather than evidence and honest data. That's where true science lies. Honest data, obtained by real scientific methods, interpreted objectively, without prejudice.
Second statement: That is not true. The evolutionary theory is full of holes and there are a multitude of scientists, of all types, who admit to it. Some are creationists, some are not, but they see the obvious problems. To be honest, L, many of your statements actually do reflect a bias towards an evolutionist religious viewpoint. And evolutionism is a religion. Just like global warmism or climatism, whatever you want to call it, based on religiously held beliefs, rather than evidence and honest data. That's where true science lies. Honest data, obtained by real scientific methods, interpreted objectively, without prejudice.
Second response: Again, the fact that you and goldie insist on equating science and religion serves only to reveal the fact that you are insecure about your own beliefs and so must try to make everyone else's beliefs just as questionable.
They are not.
Shall we open separate threads and discuss evolution, the Bible and atheism, or shall we get back to the topic at hand?
That the Earth is round is a scientifically proven fact. I'm glad we agree on that.