We Never Know
No Slack
Oh si you don't know. Nothing wrong with saying you don't know. At least it's being honest.Scientific estimation =/= "assuming". But anyway.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Oh si you don't know. Nothing wrong with saying you don't know. At least it's being honest.Scientific estimation =/= "assuming". But anyway.
Last time this sort of rubbish appeared didn't the NCSE start a petition which got more scientists with the name Steve (including Stephanie and the likes) signed up than the creationists managed using all names.
And other misleading pronouncements.
by Ken Ham on February 11, 2019
Ken Ham, true to form and not one to pass up an opportunity to mislead the gullible, repeats the old creationist canard that evolution can't explain biological origins. I know that just about every evolutionist here, and even some creationists, recognize the "crime," but I wanted everyone to know that despite being corrected time and again, people are still making the asinine assertion, and by the cream of the creationists no less. It sends the unequivocal message that: "We don't care that we have to lie in order to tear down evolution, as long as it works. We're lying for god!"
It would be amusing if it wasn't so harmful.
Scientific estimation =/= "don't know", either. But anyway.Oh si you don't know. Nothing wrong with saying you don't know. At least it's being honest.
Great video. Thanks for sharing.I see it is time to post this video again:
Very, very few biologists or geologists signed it. Almost everyone that did sign it was not qualified to make such a judgement, and a good number of biologists that signed it tried to get their names taken off of it when they realized that they were victims of a fraud.
It would be amusing if it wasn't so harmful.
Because it promotes anti-science sentiments and undermines critical thinking skills. If any given person doesn't believe in evolution, that, by itself, probably isn't a big deal in the over all course of things. However, if a person doesn't trust scientists on evolution, will they trust them on things like vaccinations? Or climate change? If their critical thinking skills are poor, they're more likely to fall victim to the exploitative tactics of shysters and demagogues. That's how it's harmful. Sorta like how a snowflake falling might not seem harmful, but get enough of them in the wrong place at the wrong time, you get an avalanche.I still think it is amuzing. How can it be so harmful?
Because it promotes anti-science sentiments and undermines critical thinking skills. If any given person doesn't believe in evolution, that, by itself, probably isn't a big deal in the over all course of things. However, if a person doesn't trust scientists on evolution, will they trust them on things like vaccinations? Or climate change? If their critical thinking skills are poor, they're more likely to fall victim to the exploitative tactics of shysters and demagogues. That's how it's harmful. Sorta like how a snowflake falling might not seem harmful, but get enough of them in the wrong place at the wrong time, you get an avalanche.
Already citedLast time this sort of rubbish appeared didn't the NCSE start a petition which got more scientists with the name Steve (including Stephanie and the likes) signed up than the creationists managed using all names
Here it is...
Project Steve - Wikipedia
However, if a person doesn't trust scientists on evolution, will they trust them on things like vaccinations?
Oh please.True ... they might not trust them on vaccinations? I don't trust them on vaccinations either. Some are good, now they want to impose flu vaccine
Another big flaw in Science. And I wonder why they are so determined to impose flu vaccine on everyone. Can't be a good reason IMO
As long as Science is in it for the money and acts Adharmic (which they do a lot), they incur lots of karma ... and will be corrected. No doubt
That is a fact ... Science better start accepting ... Disregarding the Vedas and their Truth is not too smart of Science. If not .. well don't cry
The Divine is ruthless when it comes to "going against Dharma". And Science does that a lot and that is not my opinion, that is a fact
The Bible is not the only TruthOh please.
Yeah, I realised that when I finally got round to trawling through the posts. Ho humAlready cited
Science isn't holy, but it's not a money making conspiracy, either.The Bible is not the only Truth
And Science is far from Holy
Science isn't holy, but it's not a money making conspiracy, either.
I still think it is amuzing. How can it be so harmful? Truth will always catch up with lies. For some evolution goes really slow, that's all.
What is truly upsetting, is that freedom of press allows to call these scientists. That's why I yesterday explained to @ChristineM why I am very careful believing what scienctists tell us nowadays ... science and money give sometimes "funny" results not always "accurate" results
They bring this news while bringing their book. That tells me enough ... so many millions of Christians love to buy their book. That, I think, is safe to claim "they for sure want to cash in". And it will show how many gullible people there still are. But it will help to get the Church even more empty soon
Thanks, and your opinion is also welcomeAnd I explained to you why you are mistaken but never the less, you are welcome to your opinion
And that is a POTENTIAL flaw in the system. It's not justification to handwave any scientific information, however. Even the Wakefield claims, blatantly false and moneygrubbing as they were, needed to be empirically disproved, rather than merely handwaved.But it needs to be funded, so it is dependent on the rich guys, and they will dictate how their money is used to some degree.
I do think most scientists are the good guys, because they just love/believe science, like I do. But the bankers never give for free
Still waiting for you to explain how bacteria 'make themselves immune' to things.That works both ways.