IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
You just can't answer a direct question. I think I've already put more effort into trying to reason with you than is really worth it. I think I'm going to simply move on.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Article, “Internal Proofs of Bible Authenticity”
- Thread starter Hockeycowboy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- accuracy bible trustworthy
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Seriously????
Not so.
Well, at least we can end the conversation on a not of agreement.
clara17
Memorable member
good idea
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, there are rules for evidence. If you want to claim that something is evidence it has to follow those rules. Your lying source does not follow the scientific method. In fact it requires their employees to swear that they will not follow it.
If you want to claim to have evidence you must be able to show the testable hypothesis that generated it. Them's the rules. Sorry.
clara17
Memorable member
Im not referring to a source. Im referring to hundreds of sources. If you don't know the mountain of evidence that supports the flood, it's probably because for decades, organic science has been stifled, and anything supporting pre-etsbalished paradigms promoted and heavily funded. It's a global money machine, vs self-funded independents. If you like the gmo stuff, keep consuming it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
"Organic science"? That sounds like nonsense. Seriously, we have the scientific method. If someone wants to use another problem solving method they need to come up with their own terminology. Not try to fool the ignorant with bogus claims.
What is funny about that article is that it complains about things that have not been observed without knowing how they have been observed. That is what happens quite often in pseudoscience.
clara17
Memorable member
the point of the article is that funding comes from very few sources, and is only directed at protecting the status quo. It has gone on for a long time. Most people think they 'trust the science' when what they actually trust is the science industry.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, but one thing that you do not seem to understand is that scientists are different from most people. Money does not matter to them all that much. If it did they would be working in the private sector where they could make far more money. They do not follow orders very well. There has never been shown a conspiracy by scientists to toe some governmental line. Now you are going the route of the conspiracy theorist because you do not like reality.
clara17
Memorable member
Ohhh you pulled the magic word. You said 'conspiracy' so I will now shut my mind off. Ask yourself why all the hoaxes supporting evolution were necessary? Why would anyone, ever under any circumstances need to "fake" science? Scientists are not "different from most people." If you spend 10 years going down a career path, to discover that real success and prominence are available thru one door, and all other doors are closed, many will walk thru that one door. But not all, and that is why you have people who write letters like the cosmology statement.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
LOL! That was exactly what you were describing. It is apparent that even you know how silly and bogus your argument was.
Audie
Veteran Member
Half the time our creos are all about how
there’s different opinions in science so they
cant be trusted and then they can’t coz of
conspiracy and groupthink.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What "hoaxes of evolution"? Please remember when you make such a charge the burden of proof is upon you. I know of two. That does not seem like a lot compared to the millions of fossils that support evolution. And also this is very very poor reasoning on your part. If you think that Christianity is without hoaxes you are incredibly mistaken. Those are endless. You may not even know what a hoax is.
From endless fake artifacts to the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion to the James Ossuary to ...
... so many hoaxes; so many dupes.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
My favorite is the Shroud of Turin. They just won't let that one go. But as I say, hoaxes that abuse a belief are not evidence against that belief. Though ironically many creationists seem to think that they are.
Audie
Veteran Member
Why not?
Maybe you see no reason and would do it.
Others would not, because they have integrity.
Another reason is the all but certain ruin of their career.
Hint: those who know nothing of what they’re talking about
tend to say senseless things.
there’s a self respect element you might ponder.
Maybe you see no reason and would do it.
Others would not, because they have integrity.
Another reason is the all but certain ruin of their career.
Hint: those who know nothing of what they’re talking about
tend to say senseless things.
there’s a self respect element you might ponder.
Audie
Veteran Member
Religious hoaxes are perped every minute of the day.
But they are not the foundation of faith nor demonstrate much except some
people are jerks and some are credulous.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The desperate glom onto them as if they were a lifesaver in the Atlantic. And you are right, they are not the foundation of faith. They do not refute Christianity or other religions. They only demonstrate the very weak faith of some believers. The "give me a sign!!" people.
It's called the theory of evolution for a reason. If you don't think that flora and fauna change over time to adapt to changing circumstances, you "have your head in the sand".