Forever Faithful: A Question for Creationists

It's still alot more evidence that you don't have
to support your religion of evolution.
can you say evolution backwads three times?
Noitulove,no it u love, no it u love. sounds like it means,no,it's u,that u love! hmmmmm.......
So you believe that there are some scientists who are telling
the truth and all the rest are just liars,right?

---

Desdamona

No, there's some scientists who follow the scientific method - the application of which to the question of life on earth leads to evolution - and the rest aren't scientists at all.When you start with the assumption that the Bible is true and then cherry-pick the evidence, you're no scientist, you're a charlatan. Scientists start with the assumption that observation is true and then come up with conclusions. There's plenty of evidence for evolution - as much as there is for gravity or the germ theory of disease - and it's certainly not a religion. (I've never heard of a religion that stood ready to discard everything they thought was true in the face of new, contradictory data.)The problem you have is that you're not yet ready for it. Like most people you don't know what it means to support a statement with evidence, so there's just no way that you could be expected to assemble the evidence into a proper picture of evolution. The only way you know how to check if something is true is to see if it says so in the Bible.Scientific evidence is on a totally different level than that. How do you expect to cope with it if you don't even know how to tell truth from fiction?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
{wipes tears of laughter from face} Desdamona, you are priceless!

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

Scientists start with the assumption that observation is true and then come up with conclusions.(by crashfrog)Why would they have to come up with something?

---

Desdamona

desdemona, It's called inference. You accept neutrons exist, I presume? No one has ever seen one. They are inferred from other observations. All science does this.Mark

Good question.The reason that scientists come up with explanations (we call them "models" or "theories") for natural observations is because when you have a good explanation, you can make predictions.Predictions, being a sort of knowledge about the future, are obviously of great value to everyone.It's the models and theories developed by scientists that form the basis of technology.

I don't see God in all his glory,but I believe I saw his son.
More blessed is the one who has not seen yet still believes.

---

Desdamona

If you say 'god' backwards it sounds like 'dog'... hmm, very interesting.

desdemona, And what does this have to do with the hypothetico-deductive method, exactly?More stupid is the one who believes without evidence.Mark

If you say Jesus backwards is says Susej. Say that three times....Susej, Susej, Susej.. Kinda makes me Hungry for McDonalds breakfast. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, very interesting.I have to say, theat logic about "saying evoloution backwards" IS priceless... How, could you even post that with a straight face?

Hi Desdemona, Good advice! Keep in mind that all you know of God and Jesus, including the Bible itself, came from men.--Percy

A nomad sed, a nomad sed, a nomad sed...I wonder just what the nomad said. Probably something like: "O, fuck! Not another bloody desert..."

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

"It's called inference. You accept neutrons exist, I presume? No one has ever seen one. They are inferred from other observations. All science does this."Can you come up with scientific "inference" that the universe,and if it has an infinate barrier,the realm of space beyond the universe has an end.The undeniable fact that science cannot comprehend where this tangible realm actually ends or begins.Science does not have all of the answers.God eternal is said to be from a "fairy tale" What is more unrealistic,Undeniable eternal space,held to be true and existing in science or eternal God.You have to except both and not deny one existing against the other.

quote:

---

Science does not have all of the answers.
  —Cromwell

---

Of course not. This is why there are new scientists emerging from universities every year. If everything were already known then scientists would not be needed. In fact, I would bet that almost every scientist enjoys the fact that we don't know everything. Maybe next time you read the Bible you can tell us what it says about quantum fluctuations around the event horizon within a black hole. Then you can show us how the Bible is a better science text than current scientific theories.But let me ask you this. If you had a bad sore throat who would you go to? A doctor trained in the sciences or a witch doctor trained in the supernatural? For a field that doesn't know everything, it still knows quite a bit, enough to earn your trust when it comes to your mortal health.

I'm glad that your honesty admits that science doesn't have all of the answers.It certainly doesn't have the answers to give reason to deny an eternal God in comparison to the acceptance of an eternal endless universe and /or realm beyond.Do you personally have an answer to this?
A half baked philosophy is like half baked bread.Difficult to stomach.Why would the bible want to divulge into quantum mechanics? The bible is not a book about science,but one that is a guide for our well being and more importantly the question of what is known as universal sovereignty.The right to rule between Satan the angelic being that contested God to prove that he could rule as well,if not better than God.This is the theme throughout the scriptures.Its in your perspective as to what you define as supernatural.I don't see the witch doctor as a comparison with a God of order,but back down to earth.I wouldn't go to the witch doctor,if i had a sore throat.(In reality i go to the doctor because i have no alternative.)Likewise i wouldn't go to the doctor if i wanted to consult demons.Each serves his own purpose.So i've come here (to the doctor)to see if science has the answers to give,but you've already admitted that it doesn't know everything.It is therefore as infallible and as make beleivable (at this moment of time) as the theory of creationism (at this moment of time) it condemns so as fantasy.