Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[Geneviev]

The Bible as it exists now is still accurate.

Yes, the book that describes a flat earth with dragons and the like is totally accurate.

Also, creationism is supported by science.

No, buddy, it really really isn't. A blog post saying that the theory of evolution by natural selection is non-falsifiable sort of betrays its total disregard for actual science.

The Bible doesn't say anything about a flat earth, and it has dinosaurs, not dragons. And actual science shows that the earth was created by God.

The Bible as it exists now is still accurate. Also, creationism is supported by science.

Sure, many manuscripts are similar, but I personally possess a few that prove there are variations in the manuscripts of the Bible.

Also, although I didnt read the link, science doesnt adhere to any faith in particular. It's just simply a study of nature. If anyone is advocating for creationism as a scientist, then that's not science anymore. Theology comes in.

I even acknowledge this as an evolutionary creationist Muslim.

Even if there are variations , they can't be too different. And if a scientist is saying creationism is true, that's because the evidence supports it.

[Neutraligon]

Yes, the book that describes a flat earth with dragons and the like is totally accurate.

No, buddy, it really really isn't. A blog post saying that the theory of evolution by natural selection is non-falsifiable sort of betrays its total disregard for actual science.

The Bible doesn't say anything about a flat earth, and it has dinosaurs, not dragons. And actual science shows that the earth was created by God.

Sure, many manuscripts are similar, but I personally possess a few that prove there are variations in the manuscripts of the Bible.

Also, although I didnt read the link, science doesnt adhere to any faith in particular. It's just simply a study of nature. If anyone is advocating for creationism as a scientist, then that's not science anymore. Theology comes in.

I even acknowledge this as an evolutionary creationist Muslim.

Even if there are variations , they can't be too different. And if a scientist is saying creationism is true, that's because the evidence supports it.

Except scientists don't say creationism is true (or at least those in the field who provide actual evidence for their claims do not say that), or at least if you take the creation stories literally they are not seen as true by scientists. AS to science showing earth was made by god, no it doesn't, because science can make no claims about the supernatural, and god is part of the supernatural.

[Jolthig]

Yes, the book that describes a flat earth with dragons and the like is totally accurate.

No, buddy, it really really isn't. A blog post saying that the theory of evolution by natural selection is non-falsifiable sort of betrays its total disregard for actual science.

The Bible doesn't say anything about a flat earth, and it has dinosaurs, not dragons. And actual science shows that the earth was created by God.

Sure, many manuscripts are similar, but I personally possess a few that prove there are variations in the manuscripts of the Bible.

Also, although I didnt read the link, science doesnt adhere to any faith in particular. It's just simply a study of nature. If anyone is advocating for creationism as a scientist, then that's not science anymore. Theology comes in.

I even acknowledge this as an evolutionary creationist Muslim.

Even if there are variations , they can't be too different. And if a scientist is saying creationism is true, that's because the evidence supports it.

Has it been well documented?
Because the problem is, science relies on evidence based on the natural world. Whether or not a scientist is religious.

[The Alma Mater]

And actual science shows that the earth was created by God.

Pro-tip: repeating a lie over and over in defense of your faith makes your faith look weak and false.

If you desire to convince people your faith is correct find a better tactic.
If you want people to think of christians as stupid liars.. keep up the work.

[Neutraligon]

The Bible doesn't say anything about a flat earth, and it has dinosaurs, not dragons. And actual science shows that the earth was created by God.


Even if there are variations , they can't be too different. And if a scientist is saying creationism is true, that's because the evidence supports it.

Has it been well documented?
Because the problem is, science relies on evidence based on the natural world. Whether or not a scientist is religious.

It can't be documented, because science can only speak on the natural universe (ie what is observable), and god is not part of the natural universe. As such science can't say that god does or does not exist let alone that the universe was made by a god.

[Neutraligon]

And actual science shows that the earth was created by God.

Pro-tip: repeating a lie over and over in defense of your faith makes your faith look weak and false.

If you desire to convince people your faith is correct find a better tactic.
If you want people to think of christians as stupid liars.. keep up the work.

Alma I doubt this is a lie. I think Geneviev actually believes what they are saying.

[Jolthig]

Has it been well documented?
Because the problem is, science relies on evidence based on the natural world. Whether or not a scientist is religious.

It can't be documented, because science can only speak on the natural universe (ie what is observable), and god is not part of the natural universe. As such science can't say that god does or does not exist let alone that the universe was made by a god.

Well, what I meant by "documented " was research papers published by scientists on their findings, or theories they came up with, based on the evidence they found.

[The Alma Mater]

Has it been well documented?
Because the problem is, science relies on evidence based on the natural world. Whether or not a scientist is religious.

It can't be documented, because science can only speak on the natural universe (ie what is observable), and god is not part of the natural universe. As such science can't say that god does or does not exist let alone that the universe was made by a god.

Though admittedly people like Behe and Dembski tried.
They failed miserably, but they tried. They made an actual effort. I can respect that.
I cannot respect that they refuse to admit they were wrong, but hey.

[Neutraligon]

It can't be documented, because science can only speak on the natural universe (ie what is observable), and god is not part of the natural universe. As such science can't say that god does or does not exist let alone that the universe was made by a god.

Well, what I meant by "documented " was research papers published by scientists on their findings, or theories they came up with, based on the evidence they found.

And like I said, how exactly do you get scientific research papers about something like a god?

[Neutraligon]

It can't be documented, because science can only speak on the natural universe (ie what is observable), and god is not part of the natural universe. As such science can't say that god does or does not exist let alone that the universe was made by a god.

Though admittedly people like Behe and Dembski tried.
They failed miserably, but they tried. They made an actual effort. I can respect that.
I cannot respect that they refuse to admit they were wrong, but hey.

I can sorta respect it...but not really since by doing what they did they failed utterly to do science. They led the information, rather than follow it. They had a conclusion they already wanted to reach.

[Jolthig]

Well, what I meant by "documented " was research papers published by scientists on their findings, or theories they came up with, based on the evidence they found.

And like I said, how exactly do you get scientific research papers about something like a god?

I never mentioned a God in my comment. When I said, "whether or not a scientist is religious", I meant any scientist, regardless of any belief they have, studies nature without any bias, but to find available evidence to form theories.

[Geneviev]

The Bible doesn't say anything about a flat earth, and it has dinosaurs, not dragons. And actual science shows that the earth was created by God.


Even if there are variations , they can't be too different. And if a scientist is saying creationism is true, that's because the evidence supports it.

Has it been well documented?
Because the problem is, science relies on evidence based on the natural world. Whether or not a scientist is religious.

I know it's somewhere on https://creation.com but the page isn't working for me for whatever reason.

[Jolthig]

Has it been well documented?
Because the problem is, science relies on evidence based on the natural world. Whether or not a scientist is religious.

I know it's somewhere on https://creation.com but the page isn't working for me for whatever reason.

The problem is any view of the world that comes into play when it comes to science, doesn't make a finding scientific based on a religious observation.

If we argue for creationism (whatever form it is), it is only an opinion, and not evidence based on science. Which opinions aren't scientific either. They might help form theories, but that's it.

Most of the articles on creation.com are not scientific no matter many degrees in a university these self proclaimed scientists get or claim to get.

[Wallenburg]

Has it been well documented?
Because the problem is, science relies on evidence based on the natural world. Whether or not a scientist is religious.

I know it's somewhere on https://creation.com but the page isn't working for me for whatever reason.

I'm not sure who you think you will convince by linking us to a website solely dedicated to churning out pseudoscience and religious propaganda.

[Neutraligon]

Has it been well documented?
Because the problem is, science relies on evidence based on the natural world. Whether or not a scientist is religious.

I know it's somewhere on https://creation.com but the page isn't working for me for whatever reason.

Creation.com is a psuedoscientific website at best. Normally though it simply lies about scientific research.

[The Free Joy State]

I know it's somewhere on https://creation.com but the page isn't working for me for whatever reason.

The problem is any view of the world that comes into play when it comes to science, doesn't make a finding scientific based on a religious observation.

If we argue for creationism (whatever form it is), it is only an opinion, and not evidence based on science. Which opinions aren't scientific either. They might help form theories, but that's it.

Most of the articles on creation.com are not scientific no matter many degrees in a university these self proclaimed scientists get or claim to get.

Also, you have to look at the University the alleged scientists attended. Is the degree legit and from a widely respected institution, or was it an unaccredited one from Bob Jones University or Pensacola Christian College?

EDIT: Still wouldn't accept that source, though. I like peer-reviewed articles.

[Big Jim P]

I believe in all the Gods. Just like and on the exact same level that I believe in any other fictional character.

[The Alma Mater]

Though admittedly people like Behe and Dembski tried.
They failed miserably, but they tried. They made an actual effort. I can respect that.
I cannot respect that they refuse to admit they were wrong, but hey.

I can sorta respect it...but not really since by doing what they did they failed utterly to do science. They led the information, rather than follow it. They had a conclusion they already wanted to reach.

Hence why they failed. Rather spectaculary in the flagellum case, since the evidence they needed to negate their hypothesis was three doors down the hallway; but they never bothered to look.

Still. Design inference and irreducible complexity were creative ideas. Promoting tunnevision and therefor failing; but still a spark of creativity.

[Jolthig]

The problem is any view of the world that comes into play when it comes to science, doesn't make a finding scientific based on a religious observation.

If we argue for creationism (whatever form it is), it is only an opinion, and not evidence based on science. Which opinions aren't scientific either. They might help form theories, but that's it.

Most of the articles on creation.com are not scientific no matter many degrees in a university these self proclaimed scientists get or claim to get.

Also, you have to look at the University. Is the degree legit and from a widely respected institution, or was it an unaccredited one from Bob Jones University or Pensacola Christian College?

EDIT: Still wouldn't accept that source, though. I like peer-reviewed articles.

Exactly.

Plus, these people put their degrees or so called "degrees" on their works so that it can sell on the market.

[Geneviev]

I know it's somewhere on https://creation.com but the page isn't working for me for whatever reason.

The problem is any view of the world that comes into play when it comes to science, doesn't make a finding scientific based on a religious observation.

If we argue for creationism (whatever form it is), it is only an opinion, and not evidence based on science. Which opinions aren't scientific either. They might help form theories, but that's it.

Most of the articles on creation.com are not scientific no matter many degrees in a university these self proclaimed scientists get or claim to get.

They're really scientists, and the articles on the website are showing the evidence for creationism. There was soft tissue found on a fossil that was supposed to be 500 million years old.

[Jolthig]

The problem is any view of the world that comes into play when it comes to science, doesn't make a finding scientific based on a religious observation.

If we argue for creationism (whatever form it is), it is only an opinion, and not evidence based on science. Which opinions aren't scientific either. They might help form theories, but that's it.

Most of the articles on creation.com are not scientific no matter many degrees in a university these self proclaimed scientists get or claim to get.

They're really scientists, and the articles on the website are showing the evidence for creationism. There was soft tissue found on a fossil that was supposed to be 500 million years old.

They might have degrees in science, but that doesnt mean any of their 'findings' are scientific.

There's an answer to that. The soft tissue in dinosaur bones remained (and it's been years since I read an article on that, debunking that creationist claim, so correct me anyone if I'm wrong) because some life-forms of some sort lived in there and made their home in it. I believe it's the same kind of forms that are in pond scum (again correct me if I'm wrong people, I really need updating on my info. It's been years since I read that one article haha)

[Wallenburg]

The problem is any view of the world that comes into play when it comes to science, doesn't make a finding scientific based on a religious observation.

If we argue for creationism (whatever form it is), it is only an opinion, and not evidence based on science. Which opinions aren't scientific either. They might help form theories, but that's it.

Most of the articles on creation.com are not scientific no matter many degrees in a university these self proclaimed scientists get or claim to get.

They're really scientists, and the articles on the website are showing the evidence for creationism. There was soft tissue found on a fossil that was supposed to be 500 million years old.

Organic material can survive for hundreds of millions of years under the right conditions. The very existence of a fossil indicates that the body it resulted from was incredibly well preserved. I don't see the point you are trying to make.

[The Alma Mater]

The problem is any view of the world that comes into play when it comes to science, doesn't make a finding scientific based on a religious observation.

If we argue for creationism (whatever form it is), it is only an opinion, and not evidence based on science. Which opinions aren't scientific either. They might help form theories, but that's it.

Most of the articles on creation.com are not scientific no matter many degrees in a university these self proclaimed scientists get or claim to get.

They're really scientists, and the articles on the website are showing the evidence for creationism. There was soft tissue found on a fossil that was supposed to be 500 million years old.

That is indeed very convincing evidence for the Hindu creation tale

[Neutraligon]

They're really scientists, and the articles on the website are showing the evidence for creationism. There was soft tissue found on a fossil that was supposed to be 500 million years old.

They might have degrees in science, but that doesnt mean any of their 'findings' are scientific.

There's an answer to that. The soft tissue in dinosaur bones remained (and it's been years since I read an article on that, debunking that creationist claim, so correct me anyone if I'm wrong) because some life-forms of some sort lived in there and made their home in it. I believe it's the same kind of forms that are in pond scum (again correct me if I'm wrong people, I really need updating on my info. It's been years since I read that one article haha)

https://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-fa ... really-say

Basically it says that certain factors about the soft tissues, as well as the situations under which the fossilization of the bones occurred might have effected the degradation rate.

[Jolthig]

They might have degrees in science, but that doesnt mean any of their 'findings' are scientific.

There's an answer to that. The soft tissue in dinosaur bones remained (and it's been years since I read an article on that, debunking that creationist claim, so correct me anyone if I'm wrong) because some life-forms of some sort lived in there and made their home in it. I believe it's the same kind of forms that are in pond scum (again correct me if I'm wrong people, I really need updating on my info. It's been years since I read that one article haha)

https://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-fa ... really-say

Thanks!