Don Penguinoini
Modi.
Becase sometimes faith in something is all some people need to believe, love and cherish something.
(atheists are things...what a friggin wierdo!)
(atheists are things...what a friggin wierdo!)
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Roli said:Not only have I had an ecounter with God through the power of his Holy Spirit
DreGod07 said:
Lots of things without testable predictions are thought to be "scientific."Firstly are there any testable predictions made by Creationism?
If there aren't why do people still believe in Creationism?
a) A lack of understanding of why testable predictions are so important?
b) There is sufficient merit in the structure of Creationism to warrant belief in it even in the abscence of testable predictions?
c) Something else?
Rolling Stone said:I wonder...is the fact that H2O puts out fire predictable?
Why don't you think its conclusive?Captain Civic said:It's a good start, but hardly conclusive
You obviously miss the point of the question. Look a little deeper.
?Explain to us, this encounter
And what purpose would that serve for you ?
Why would I subject that experience to your side show antics of open ridicule and mockery.
You've heard it before, you just can't accept it because you can't explain it.
That is how God touches a life, outside the relam of reason and emperical evidence.
You still don't get it. The "H" in "H2O" is a fuel. The "O" sustains combustion. The question is if it can be predicted that the combination would put out fire if the fact were not already known.I'll have to ask you to explain. The fact that H(2)O puts out fire is testable on the molecular level and beyond, so I guess I don't see your finer point here.
Fire is a process of rapid oxidation. I predict that if a barrier were to be inserted between the fuel (the substance being oxidized) and any usable oxygen then the fire will be extinguished.You still don't get it. The "H" in "H2O" is a fuel. The "O" sustains combustion. The question is if it can be predicted that the combination would put out fire if the fact were not already known.
Here's another one: is the fact that a catipiller turns into a butterfly a predictable scientific fact, or is it simply an observational fact?
If you've read any of my posts you know I love science, but "testable predictions" is hardly a the sole criterion of truth.
Here's another one: is the fact that a catipiller turns into a butterfly a predictable scientific fact, or is it simply an observational fact?
:bow:Niagra Falls has been eroding for around 12,500 years, proving the earth cannot be older than that...
I get it. Until we are able to verify we have no way of doubting the information given. This is another reason why I say science stays clear of religion. Scientist aren't set out put to prove that God does not exist. Religion has given us nothing to test. On the other hand scientist has collected huge amounts of data and as I said earlier the best some creationist can do is send some one with a bachelores degree in chemistry to refute evolution.
YouTube - Earth is 6,000 Years Old
Check this guy out. This stuff is truely funny.
You still don't get it. The "H" in "H2O" is a fuel. The "O" sustains combustion. The question is if it can be predicted that the combination would put out fire if the fact were not already known.
Rolling Stone said:Here's another one: is the fact that a catipiller turns into a butterfly a predictable scientific fact, or is it simply an observational fact?
If you've read any of my posts you know I love science, but "testable predictions" is hardly a the sole criterion of truth.
:biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh: i totally want to meet this guy.