Scientists say...

[Subduction Zone]

I still can't see why you don't question those that have God AND a total belief in scientific theory here about these things -- who knows? maybe it would help you to believe in God. Or do you, but maybe just not the Bible? There are quite a few here who believe in unseen somethings maybe not the Bible, maybe yes, and science also. Talk to them about these things.
If you can't produce evidence in the form of information from the science basis you're speaking of and don't want to discuss it, hey, have a good day, please. Bye for now...
Remember though--sediment can be moved by flowing lava. So don't worry about that.

Why would I need to? Belief in God should not change one's acceptance of reality. I can produce the evidence, but that would be pointless since you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence and why. I cannot force a person to be honest. But if someone has demonstrated that they cannot be honest when it comes to the sciences then there is no point in providing them with evidence.

Can you be honest? Could you be honest enough to accept evidence even if it showed that there was no God?

 

[YoursTrue]

Why would I need to? Belief in God should not change one's acceptance of reality. I can produce the evidence, but that would be pointless since you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence and why.

In other words, you do not want to. Because you see no purpose to it. OK. I understand although I do not agree with that. But it's ok.

I cannot force a person to be honest. But if someone has demonstrated that they cannot be honest when it comes to the sciences then there is no point in providing them with evidence.

If you can show evidence for something scientific for which you say God is not necessary or something like that, I'm willing to look. Would it show you that it means there is no God? (oh well, go ahead and meet your claims if you will.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Why would I need to? Belief in God should not change one's acceptance of reality. I can produce the evidence, but that would be pointless since you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence and why. I cannot force a person to be honest. But if someone has demonstrated that they cannot be honest when it comes to the sciences then there is no point in providing them with evidence.

Can you be honest? Could you be honest enough to accept evidence even if it showed that there was no God?

Now let me tell you something because I think in a way you are looking for something. I'm going to tell you that it makes sense to me the conflict someone brought to my attention recently about Moses, Pharaoh, and making like Moses God to Pharaoh. Very, very interesting. Can I explain it all? Nope, I cannot.

 

[YoursTrue]

It floors me that you can be in this forum for so long, and have this explained to you so many times, and yet still somehow imagine that that is the case.

I'm starting to get disgusted by your unwillingness to listen, and learn what others think. It's not just this discussion, your refusal to listen to others contaminates ALL your conversations.

I see. To be honest with you in return, I'm disgusted with the expressed belief of some who belong to a religion (ANY religion) yet say it's all a myth. Have a nice day. Thank you so much for expressing yourself and the unwillingness of yourself and some others to clearly expose your beliefs "scientificallyi."

 

[Pogo]

In other words, you do not want to. Because you see no purpose to it. OK. I understand although I do not agree with that. But it's ok.

If you can show evidence for something scientific for which you say God is not necessary or something like that, I'm willing to look. Would it show you that it means there is no God? (oh well, go ahead and meet your claims if you will.)

It is impossible to disprove an omnipotent god such as you seem to fall back on whenever something does not comport with your preconceptions.
Heck it is impossible to disprove that Thor is responsible for lightning, It is not necessity or disproof, it is just acceptance of the consistency of the scientific theories around lightning or what have you.

 

[Pogo]

I see. To be honest with you in return, I'm disgusted with the expressed belief of some who belong to a religion (ANY religion) yet say it's all a myth. Have a nice day. Thank you so much for expressing yourself and the unwillingness of yourself and some others to clearly expose your beliefs "scientificallyi."

Poe’s Law is named after Nathan Poe, an agnostic user on the message board Christian Forums who posted in 2005: “POES LAW: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is uttrerly [sic] impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone wont mistake for the genuine article.” In a thread debating creationism, Poe wrote this in response to a comment: “Good thing you included the winky. Otherwise people might think you are serious.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

In other words, you do not want to. Because you see no purpose to it. OK. I understand although I do not agree with that. But it's ok.

No, it is not about want. It is that there is no rational reason to believe. If they want to make an argument for their God they are free to do so. I am not going to pester them since they are not harming anyone.

If you can show evidence for something scientific for which you say God is not necessary or something like that, I'm willing to look. Would it show you that it means there is no God? (oh well, go ahead and meet your claims if you will.)

How can you do that when you do not even understand the concept of evidence?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, it is not about want. It is that there is no rational reason to believe. If they want to make an argument for their God they are free to do so. I am not going to pester them since they are not harming anyone.

How can you do that when you do not even understand the concept of evidence?

LOL, yeah -- have a good day!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now let me tell you something because I think in a way you are looking for something. I'm going to tell you that it makes sense to me the conflict someone brought to my attention recently about Moses, Pharaoh, and making like Moses God to Pharaoh. Very, very interesting. Can I explain it all? Nope, I cannot.

You could not answer my question. That tells me quite a bit. I am always looking for answers. But part of looking is learning what is not an answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL, yeah -- have a good day!

You cannot make demands if you refuse to learn the very basics that you need to understand the answers. It is incredibly hypocritical to do that.

 

[YoursTrue]

You cannot make demands if you refuse to learn the very basics that you need to understand the answers. It is incredibly hypocritical to do that.

I'm not making demands -- I'm asking you to show what you're talking about. But you're not. If that's making demands, lol, ok.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, it is not about want. It is that there is no rational reason to believe. If they want to make an argument for their God they are free to do so. I am not going to pester them since they are not harming anyone.

How can you do that when you do not even understand the concept of evidence?

As far as harming others, all you have to do is look at the protests in the U.S. and the war going on in the middle east.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not making demands -- I'm asking you to show what you're talking about. But you're not. If that's making demands, lol, ok.

That is a from of a demand. And I cannot show you if you are not willing to at least learn the basics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As far as harming others, all you have to do is look at the protests in the U.S. and the war going on in the middle east.

And that is a Tu Quoque fallacy. Please do not do that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Before I make any statements or assessments of your belief, may I ask if you think or believe that the person described as Moses in the Bible is a true account?

Obviously not.

Meantime, why not just say what, if any, parts of Genesis particularly with regard to the history you think are mythical.

Pretty much all of it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In other words, you do not want to.

No, that is not even remotely what he said.

If you can show evidence for something scientific for which you say God is not necessary or something like that, I'm willing to look.

The evidence of the posting history on this forum, says otherwise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Poe’s Law is named after Nathan Poe, an agnostic user on the message board Christian Forums who posted in 2005: “POES LAW: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is uttrerly [sic] impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone wont mistake for the genuine article.” In a thread debating creationism, Poe wrote this in response to a comment: “Good thing you included the winky. Otherwise people might think you are serious.”

Nathan Poe is a legend

 

[Pogo]

Nathan Poe is a legend

And he is even real unlike some of the characters in this thread.

 

[paarsurrey]

Scientists say...

Aren't the Scientists ordinary errant people, please?
Regards

____________
The Lay Scientist People in science

"Scientists say..."​

"Gibson's Law - popular in American PR circles - states that for every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert."​

Martin Robbins
Tue 6 Mar 2012 13.15 GMT

"Scientists say..." | by Martin Robbins

Martin Robbins: Journalists need to get over their unhealthy obsession with individuals, speculative arguments and single studies in a world where context is everything

www.theguardian.com

 

[Pogo]

Scientists say...

Aren't the Scientists ordinary errant people, please?
Regards

They are human, yes are you attempting to dismiss the conclusions drawn from evidence because of this?
Do you have any idea how the scientific method works?