Truth: either God exists or He don't.

[ratiocinator]

What is "actual evidence"??? yep I thought so. Your evidence is a wild unproven and impossible theory and you call it evidence.

False. The evidence for an old earth and for evolution is plentiful and public. Stamping your foot really hard isn't going to change that.

What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions
Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia
Radiometric Dating
How Old is Earth, and How Do We Know?
Evidence for the Big Bang | National Schools' Observatory
Big Bang, Big Claim: Why This Bold Idea Is Right | Space

 

[ratiocinator]

Knowing about something and believing in it are two different things

Your posts (and the material you linked to) suggest a lack of knowledge.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

False. The evidence for an old earth and for evolution is plentiful and public. Stamping your foot really hard isn't going to change that.

What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions
Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia
Radiometric Dating
How Old is Earth, and How Do We Know?
Evidence for the Big Bang | National Schools' Observatory
Big Bang, Big Claim: Why This Bold Idea Is Right | Space

You mean there are many customers for the snake oil salesman. You forgot about the billions who don't buy their lies

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

Your posts (and the material you linked to) suggest a lack of knowledge.

They suggest a lack of faith in snake oil salesmen

 

[Polymath257]

Absolutely right, only a fool would embrace a theory and stake his life on it unless he can fully test it and see irrefutable evidence to prove it.

But part of the point is that there is never *absolutely* irrefutable evidence of general theories.

For one thing, tests are never perfect themselves. So there is always the possibility that a more refined test will show something you didn't foresee.

 

[Polymath257]

There's nothing new to learn, once you know the truth everything else is exposed for what it is. I'm not seeking new information, I rebuke anyone who comes to me with some new doctrine. God warned us about those who come to us with some new thing

So, from the time you decided you have the truth, you are resistant to any new learning.

Not exactly the course of reason for a fallible human.

 

[Polymath257]

My university professor told me that critical thinking is banned at secular universities. He said you are here to swallow whatever we feed you, then regurgitate it at exam time, you're not here to challenge our theories and hypothesis.
That told me everything I needed to know about secular science

Until you are doing research, your job is to learn what people have already discovered. That is especially true in the introductory classes that you would take in your first year.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

But part of the point is that there is never *absolutely* irrefutable evidence of general theories.

For one thing, tests are never perfect themselves. So there is always the possibility that a more refined test will show something you didn't foresee.

Now you have explained why I don't put my trust in science, there's nothing certain or sure about it. The whole thing could be discarded at anytime as unreliable fantasy

 

[Polymath257]

Now you have explained why I don't put my trust in science, there's nothing certain or sure about it. The whole thing could be discarded at anytime as unreliable fantasy

No, what happens is that our descriptions get more accurate over time. We can always learn more, especially when we get new techniques and methods. But that doesn't mean we give up what we already know.

I would point out that since science tests itself at all times, it is much more reliable that anything religion can provide. Religion picks a viewpoint and then refuses to change, in spite of the evidence against it. Ultimately, that type of faith is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

So, from the time you decided you have the truth, you are resistant to any new learning.

Not exactly the course of reason for a fallible human.

God said, there's nothing new under the sun. All things remain the same as they always have been from the beginning. Sure, we can rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic but it doesn't change anything or add anything new to the equation.
We can manipulate dirt and separate different compounds and elements into their groups but nothing has changed. We still have all the elements present, they have just been rearranged just like the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Mankind can build a space force to combat in coming comets, but God still gets His way if He decides to send a big fast one our way

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

Until you are doing research, your job is to learn what people have already discovered. That is especially true in the introductory classes that you would take in your first year.

You mean the "Indoctrination" classes that we took in the first year

 

[ratiocinator]

You mean there are many customers for the snake oil salesman.

All you do is just assert. You never address the evidence and never address the criticisms of your own sources. How do you expect to be taken seriously?

You forgot about the billions who don't buy their lies

Who are these billions? As far as I'm aware, most major Christian denominations accept old earth and evolution.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

No, what happens is that our descriptions get more accurate over time. We can always learn more, especially when we get new techniques and methods. But that doesn't mean we give up what we already know.

I would point out that since science tests itself at all times, it is much more reliable that anything religion can provide. Religion picks a viewpoint and then refuses to change, in spite of the evidence against it. Ultimately, that type of faith is intellectually dishonest.

Let me tell you what I find dishonest, that is putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. If we allow scientists to keep themselves honest, then what have we done? I'm sure I don't need to spell it out for you. It's the same as asking the Mafia to report their activities to the FBI regularly

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know how much you know about pseudo science but I guarantee you I know twice as much as you do about it.
You make accusations but you have never asked me any questions about what you accuse me of being ignorant about

Okay, here is your big chance, why doesn't radiometric dating work?

No creationist can answer that without looking like a complete fool. Do you think that you can do any better?

 

[Polymath257]

God said, there's nothing new under the sun. All things remain the same as they always have been from the beginning. Sure, we can rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic but it doesn't change anything or add anything new to the equation.
We can manipulate dirt and separate different compounds and elements into their groups but nothing has changed. We still have all the elements present, they have just been rearranged just like the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Mankind can build a space force to combat in coming comets, but God still gets His way if He decides to send a big fast one our way

But that doesn't mean we don't have things to learn. We, as fallible humans, can always learn more.

 

[Polymath257]

You mean the "Indoctrination" classes that we took in the first year

All testable ideas. As opposed to the indoctrination classes in church that last years and target those too young to understand what is going on.

 

[Spirit of Light]

You mean the "Indoctrination" classes that we took in the first year

No, i am a free human being who chose to daily study and practice sufi teaching, no indoctrination.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is "actual evidence"??? yep I thought so. Your evidence is a wild unproven and impossible theory and you call it evidence. Man talk about selling yourself short

What do you mean " unproven "? No scientific theory is proven. That is a mathematical term. When you make such claims you sound as if you do not even have a high school level of scientific literacy.

The theory of evolution has an endless supply of evidence that supports it. Creationists cannot seem to find one piece of evidence against it. But then, creationists are a cowardly bunch. Most are too afraid too learn what even qualifies as evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

Let me tell you what I find dishonest, that is putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. If we allow scientists to keep themselves honest, then what have we done? I'm sure I don't need to spell it out for you. It's the same as asking the Mafia to report their activities to the FBI regularly

Oh, you mean like the tax exemptions for religious organizations? And allowing them to govern themselves? And get large groups of people who mindlessly follow them?

Scientists have a wide range of experiences and viewpoints. They are hardly monolithic in what they believe. And that is a GOOD thing: it means there are always new views to challenge the consensus, making sure that all the conclusions are valid.

Most scientists are in it because they want to understand. They are curious. The monetary compensation is NOTHING compared to what they would get if they went into industry. For the most part, they simply want to understand how the world works.

I would MUCH rather have a scientist in charge of something than a preacher. You KNOW the preacher is a huckster trying to separate the marks from their money by giving pat answers to questions that have nothing to do with reality. Those that follow them tend to be brainwashed to never even consider another viewpoint.

I'd much rather someone who is curious and willing to consider new views as opposed to someone who isn't willing or able to admit they are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now you have explained why I don't put my trust in science, there's nothing certain or sure about it. The whole thing could be discarded at anytime as unreliable fantasy

Except for computer science. Oh oh and if you drive a car, geology.

Oh!! Wait. No . . .

Okay okay, geology is only true for oil drilling!