Of course - which is precisely why the failure to do so is so shameful.Well right now I am stuck with the question, that I thought I had answered, can a person who believes in creation do proper science.
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!
Of course - which is precisely why the failure to do so is so shameful.Well right now I am stuck with the question, that I thought I had answered, can a person who believes in creation do proper science.
Once again, please outline a single scientific experiment which has been peformed whose results supports creationism. Thank you.
Well in my opinion, every scientific experiment that has every been performed supports creationism via an orderly universe. The laws of nature to me support creationism.
Well in my opinion, every scientific experiment that has every been performed supports creationism via an orderly universe. The laws of nature to me support creationism.
Well in my opinion, every scientific experiment that has every been performed supports creationism via an orderly universe. The laws of nature to me support creationism.
Well right now I am stuck with the question, that I thought I had answered, can a person who believes in creation do proper science. I don't want to move past this point until I understand it properly. If the answer is no, then there is no use trying to answer that question.
Well in my opinion, every scientific experiment that has every been performed supports creationism via an orderly universe. The laws of nature to me support creationism.
science only deals with what can be seen and understood.
What I might do is a series of "glossary" threads. One new thread for each word, followed by 20 pages of dispute about what each word means. Lol. It's a slow day.
OK, so everyone agrees there appear to be rules governing the universe that are stable enough to be investigated and understood by us. .
exactly, which is why it is flawed,,,,
fish can't ride bicycles
That's not a "flaw", silly duck. Whales can't fly, fish can't ride bicycles, I can't grow an extra arm out of my forehead, and the natural sciences can't study the supernatural.
That's not a "flaw", silly duck. Whales can't fly, fish can't ride bicycles, I can't grow an extra arm out of my forehead, and the natural sciences can't study the supernatural.
Until the rules change of course
a lement for pluto
a former planet
now just a planetoid....
Ah, but was it ever a planet to begin with, or was it falsely categorized? (I know there's dispute of what a planet is even among the pros - I'm just getting really bored of people trying to crack the skulls of crationists, so I'm being a pest)
Am I the only one who gets a contact high from some of your posts Mr. Cheese?Until the rules change of course
a lement for pluto
a former planet
now just a planetoid....
Am I the only one who gets a contact high from some of your posts Mr. Cheese?
Pluto being changed from a planet to planetoid is irrelevant. It's still Pluto, it's composed of the exact same stuff as it was before. The universe is operating exactly as it always has before and after Pluto's new title. It shows how it's not the rules that change but how science is open ended and accomodates new info' all the time. It's like Ardipithecus ramidus pushing the origins of bipedalism back further- no rules were changed, evolution is still a fact, it's just that a science has accomodated a new wrinkle based on new evidence.