Creationism Creates Confusion for Christians

[YoursTrue]

That's your prerogative. I have mine. And I don't agree with you. But only mine gets to call itself science. Creationism is strictly an unverifiable religious statement with no science to it.

Now if only science can prove itself.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's your prerogative. I have mine. And I don't agree with you. But only mine gets to call itself science. Creationism is strictly an unverifiable religious statement with no science to it.

We do have our own view of life. I believe it is miraculous, beyond human understanding and duplication by scientists, testtubes experiments included. Atomic bombs have been invented but the elements were there.

 

[YoursTrue]

They don't claim to know all the answers to life. Neither did the writers of any bible know very much if anything at all about life. Scientists don't threaten others with hellfire if they don't accept their knowledge of physics or biology, either. They know more about our world and our place in it then any ancient culture's holy ramblings. They don't have to know everything.

When it comes to astronomy or geology, I'll take science's word over the word of a dying failed religion, thank you.

The Bible, a book inspired by God, does not explain in exact details like maybe pebbles falling from outer space to burgeon into "life." No, there are very likely things we will never know, even if we live forever on this earth as the Bible foretells for some of mankind. That is actually wonderful, including seeing plants grow.

 

[Viker]

Now if only science can prove itself.

Science can't. Multiple disciplines within science likely can demonstrate veracity in their claims. You're presenting science as one giant straw man that you can easily pick apart, so you think.

 

[Viker]

The Bible, a book inspired by God, does not explain in exact details like maybe pebbles falling from outer space to burgeon into "life." No, there are very likely things we will never know, even if we live forever on this earth as the Bible foretells for some of mankind. That is actually wonderful, including seeing plants grow.

We can't know everything. It's that simple. But we should know what we are claiming and be able to back up what we claim.

 

[shunyadragon]

I was under the impression that spinoza’s God was eternal and did not end. In any case spinozas God doesn’t have attributes. Mine does. My God gives me comfort. Spinoza and I do have one thing in common, we both believe God is the universe

I believe Spinoza's God's attributes are reflected in the universe. I may cite him specifically later but it is late. I do not believe Spinoza said God is the Universe.

 

[Jimmy]

I believe Spinoza's God's attributes are reflected in the universe. I may cite him specifically later but it is late. I do not believe Spinoza said God is the Universe.

Idk

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some people don't believe the Bible is inspired of God, I know you don't like certain questions, but how do you feel about it? Does your religion teach it's from God, and do you believe what your religion teaches about the Bible?

The question you should be asking is "With all of the flaws in the Bible why does anyone believe that it is the inspired work of God?"

Yet do you believe science is not a subjective opniion?

Scientists go out of their way to make sure that their findings are subjective. If one does not do that, creationists for example, then you are almost certainly dealing with pseudoscience.

As if scientists know the answers to life? (Hint: they don't.)

What do you mean by "the answers to life"? They know some of the answers. They know far more than you do. Why are you so jealous?

 

[metis]

I was under the impression that spinoza’s God was eternal and did not end.

I don't think he made any judgement on that one way or the other. Matter of fact, how could he possibly know the answer to that question?

In any case spinozas God doesn’t have attributes.

Well, how could one tell for sure what the attributes are? But if he's right, then God must have some attributes or he wouldn't exist.

My God gives me comfort.

Good. So too in my case.

BTW, I have no clue if Spinoza's hypothesis is right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now if only science can prove itself.

Why do you insist on telling everyone that you are scientifically illiterate. and rather hypocritical too. Tell me, what made it possible for you to communicate here almost instantly?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible, a book inspired by God, does not explain in exact details like maybe pebbles falling from outer space to burgeon into "life." No, there are very likely things we will never know, even if we live forever on this earth as the Bible foretells for some of mankind. That is actually wonderful, including seeing plants grow.

You love "proof". How are you going to prove that the Bible was inspired by God?

 

[Audie]

You love "proof". How are you going to prove that the Bible was inspired by God?

I'd have expected a god to write a more
inspired book than that boring batch of
news that can't be used.

Any wisdom could fit into a modest panpflet.

At that the same ideas are to be found elsewhere,
and in much more accessible form, minus the annoyingly
ponderous obscurantism of kjv.

 

[YoursTrue]

Science can't. Multiple disciplines within science likely can demonstrate veracity in their claims. You're presenting science as one giant straw man that you can easily pick apart, so you think.

Not necessarily. Claims are made, however, that simply cannot be ascertained. (proved or verified)

 

[YoursTrue]

They don't claim to know all the answers to life. Neither did the writers of any bible know very much if anything at all about life. Scientists don't threaten others with hellfire if they don't accept their knowledge of physics or biology, either. They know more about our world and our place in it then any ancient culture's holy ramblings. They don't have to know everything.

When it comes to astronomy or geology, I'll take science's word over the word of a dying failed religion, thank you.

We'll see as time progresses whose word is true. Maybe we'll see. It depends.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not necessarily. Claims are made, however, that simply cannot be ascertained. (proved or verified)

That only applies to your claims. It is a pity that you keep yourself scientifically illiterate since the claims of support for evolution have to be verifiable.

 

[YoursTrue]

Science can't. Multiple disciplines within science likely can demonstrate veracity in their claims. You're presenting science as one giant straw man that you can easily pick apart, so you think.

Actually it's not science. It's men's exploration into the depths of what is. The conjectural basis is what makes much of the theory of how life began or the origin of the universe absurd.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We'll see as time progresses whose word is true. Maybe we'll see. It depends.

Your claims were refuted before you were born.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually it's not science. It's men's exploration into the depths of what is. The conjectural basis is what makes much of the theory of how life began or the origin of the universe absurd.

And you once again confirm that you are scientifically illiterate. Why not take a break from discussing evolution. Let's go over the basics of science.

 

[YoursTrue]

And you once again confirm that you are scientifically illiterate. Why not take a break from discussing evolution. Let's go over the basics of science.

Lol, you made me laugh. Go over the truth or validity of evolution, lol, ok? Start from uh the beginning of evolution. Not heavens forbid abiogenesis because we know that had nothing to do with evolution, right?

 

[YoursTrue]

Your claims were refuted before you were born.

Again...I hope to see in my lifetime. If not, while I'm alive I hope to see in the future.