Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
See, they force us to do it by putting their god in the gaps in our knowledge. No scientist wants to disprove any god, but every time these gaps are filled, it shows there was no god there. I really wish they would just leave us out of it.
Mans arrogance will be his downfall,just look at history for the proof.
No man has seen the beginning of the universe or life but yet they think they know when and how it happened.
Definition of SCIENTIFIC METHOD
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
Do you see the problems with your theories according to the scientific method ?
the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses now can you explain how these methods were followed for the theory of evolution and the beginning of the universe.
Do you understand the scientific method? Do you understand the concept of "observe". Ive explained this to you before.
Gluons and quarks cannot be observed directly; their existence can only be inferred by observing their indirect effects. Yet, nuclear power still exists. Strange isnt it?
The the context of the scientific method you dont have to observe the literal event. If you had to, there wouldnt be much of a need for the scientific method. The whole point of the scientific method is to explain things you dont fully have the answer to, and in a reliable way. Usually you observe small evidence for a much larger concept, not the whole concept. Einsteins General Theory of Relativity didnt involve observing spacetime bend in the presence of mass; just its indirect effects. Yet if it were wrong our satellites wouldnt orbit the earth correctly. Strange isnt it? You can judge the age of a tree by its rings even if you didnt watch it grow the whole time.
You think your being smart and scientific by saying my evidences dont conform to the scientific method. But it just shows that you dont understand the scientific method. These evidences were first put forth by actual scientists, i just found them, so of course they conform to the scientific method. Or maybe youre just more qualified to judge what is and is not science than Ph.D's.
Do you understand the problems with your theories? (and you realize these arent my theories, right?) I have yet to see you explain ERV's, you just keep saying pics or it didnt happen. The only way you can explain that away is either a massively massive coincidence, or god trying to fuck with us. Or you could just throw out all of genetics, plug your ears, and scream "pics or it didnt happen!!!!!". I suspect you'll do that.
Mans arrogance will be his downfall? History is the proof? What historical events are you referencing?
Religious people really, really, really should not try to use history as evidence of why their ideology is superior. What did christianity bring the world? Everyone was totally ignorant and society failed to progress. It was like this for hundreds and hundreds of years. And then once people realized christianity was retarded we had the invention of things like physics and calculus and the modern society.
Maybe you should look at this again.
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Atleast i don't present just an opinion,i can present things that can be confirmed without a doubt.
This is a joke right?
Nothing in the link even comes close fact, its barely even opinion. You can hold that opinion, but youd be blatantly wrong.Atleast i don't present just an opinion,i can present things that can be confirmed without a doubt.
For example, heres an excerpt from your website.
"2.Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements."
The proof that the bible claims this, supposedly, is Hebrews 11
"By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. "
The bible says that the world is made of things we cant see, and thats your proof that its right? You realize the idea of an atom, an indivisible and microscope unit, was first thought of by Democritus, right? This wasnt exactly a new thought in the bible. Not to mention the bible says nothing about particles, just invisible stuff.
Thats was only the second point, i didnt have to look far.
But you have to realize vocabularies of that time were not complete. They were not thourough enough to explain things the way we do today.
Science even has to be revamped to support new evidence but if the theory was wrong to begin with no matter how you explain it or add to it,it would still be wrong.
3,500 years ago man did not know nearly what we know today and that is my point what was written in the scriptures many of the things were not confirmed until today.
Man did not have the ability to see what was on the ocean floor or to see cells that make up the human body.
They didn't know what caused disease or anything about bacteria. But God gave them orders to put their waste outside of town or their camps.
The bible also said to avoid people with desease and quarantine them for the protection of the towns and villages and also taught how to make the unclean person become clean. It also described when a person was clean again.
There is so much evidence from the bible that goes ignored by secularlists.
Mans arrogance will be his downfall,just look at history for the proof.
No man has seen the beginning of the universe or life but yet they think they know when and how it happened.
Definition of SCIENTIFIC METHOD
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
Do you see the problems with your theories according to the scientific method ?
the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses now can you explain how these methods were followed for the theory of evolution and the beginning of the universe.
Do you understand the scientific method? Do you understand the concept of "observe". Ive explained this to you before.
Gluons and quarks cannot be observed directly; their existence can only be inferred by observing their indirect effects. Yet, nuclear power still exists. Strange isnt it?
The the context of the scientific method you dont have to observe the literal event. If you had to, there wouldnt be much of a need for the scientific method. The whole point of the scientific method is to explain things you dont fully have the answer to, and in a reliable way. Usually you observe small evidence for a much larger concept, not the whole concept. Einsteins General Theory of Relativity didnt involve observing spacetime bend in the presence of mass; just its indirect effects. Yet if it were wrong our satellites wouldnt orbit the earth correctly. Strange isnt it? You can judge the age of a tree by its rings even if you didnt watch it grow the whole time.
You think your being smart and scientific by saying my evidences dont conform to the scientific method. But it just shows that you dont understand the scientific method. These evidences were first put forth by actual scientists, i just found them, so of course they conform to the scientific method. Or maybe youre just more qualified to judge what is and is not science than Ph.D's.
Do you understand the problems with your theories? (and you realize these arent my theories, right?) I have yet to see you explain ERV's, you just keep saying pics or it didnt happen. The only way you can explain that away is either a massively massive coincidence, or god trying to fuck with us. Or you could just throw out all of genetics, plug your ears, and scream "pics or it didnt happen!!!!!". I suspect you'll do that.
Yes I do ,I posted to make sure you do. Your side looks at evidence and then explain the evidence to fiot with the theory. We are human we don't like to admit wrong so we force things to fit our presuppositions.
That is exactly why theories are not factual because they have never seen it happen so we are back to believing something out of faith.
Mans arrogance will be his downfall? History is the proof? What historical events are you referencing?
Religious people really, really, really should not try to use history as evidence of why their ideology is superior. What did christianity bring the world? Everyone was totally ignorant and society failed to progress. It was like this for hundreds and hundreds of years. And then once people realized christianity was retarded we had the invention of things like physics and calculus and the modern society.
Look at all the communities that were destroyed By God and his army that have been confirmed through archaeology. Look at all the powerful nations that were reduced to nearly nothing.
Look what this nation is facing,if we continue to remove God from our society and the society will continue to crumble. Israel admits that is what their downfall was several times.
The thing is it was prophecide concerning Israel but it is also prophecide Israel and the middle east will bring on armageddon and what we see in the middle east sure looks like it is being set up right in front of our eyes.
Mans arrogance will be his downfall? History is the proof? What historical events are you referencing?
Religious people really, really, really should not try to use history as evidence of why their ideology is superior. What did christianity bring the world? Everyone was totally ignorant and society failed to progress. It was like this for hundreds and hundreds of years. And then once people realized christianity was retarded we had the invention of things like physics and calculus and the modern society.
Look at all the communities that were destroyed By God and his army that have been confirmed through archaeology. Look at all the powerful nations that were reduced to nearly nothing.
Look what this nation is facing,if we continue to remove God from our society and the society will continue to crumble. Israel admits that is what their downfall was several times.
The thing is it was prophecide concerning Israel but it is also prophecide Israel and the middle east will bring on armageddon and what we see in the middle east sure looks like it is being set up right in front of our eyes.
You stupid mother fucker. Your ignorant ilk is whats wrong with this world and why the rest of the world hates us. Of course the conflict in israel is a sign of the end times! Why would you ever think that you were just another idiot that thought the turn of the century would herald the apocalyse? People like you are driving this country off a cliff. We must maintain a constant military presence everywhere, especially the middle east, BECAUSE JESUS WILL BE BACK SOON! We cant let gay people marry each other because god will be sad and destroy us like sodom! We shouldnt teach what biologists write in textbooks, because what a goat herder wrote in your book disagrees with it!
OMFG!
Do you seriously think that god has destroyed civilizations?
Why doesnt he do it any more? Point me to the last civilization god destroyed. Why do you only claim god intervened in our world at times when humanity was ignorant enough to believe something like that? Doesnt it seem a little fishy to you that once humanity had become advanced enough to compile a factual history, all references to biblical intervention cease?
LOL!!!!!! Destroyed by God and his armies? What total nonsense. They were destroyed by the armies of nations with more soldiers and better organization and weopons than the nations that were destroyed.
The Bible is a damned poor source for archeology, even for the region in which it was written. That has been repeatedly demonstrated.
Very early in the Christian Church's history, a very great leader warned about interpreting things by faith that were obviously nonsense, and how this would look to those that were outside of the religion. You Fundementalists are primary examples of the warning.
This is a joke right?
Nothing in the link even comes close fact, its barely even opinion. You can hold that opinion, but youd be blatantly wrong.
For example, heres an excerpt from your website.
"2.Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements."
The proof that the bible claims this, supposedly, is Hebrews 11
"By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. "
The bible says that the world is made of things we cant see, and thats your proof that its right? You realize the idea of an atom, an indivisible and microscope unit, was first thought of by Democritus, right? This wasnt exactly a new thought in the bible. Not to mention the bible says nothing about particles, just invisible stuff.
Thats was only the second point, i didnt have to look far.
But you have to realize vocabularies of that time were not complete. They were not thourough enough to explain things the way we do today.
Science even has to be revamped to support new evidence but if the theory was wrong to begin with no matter how you explain it or add to it,it would still be wrong.
3,500 years ago man did not know nearly what we know today and that is my point what was written in the scriptures many of the things were not confirmed until today.
Man did not have the ability to see what was on the ocean floor or to see cells that make up the human body.
They didn't know what caused disease or anything about bacteria. But God gave them orders to put their waste outside of town or their camps.
The bible also said to avoid people with desease and quarantine them for the protection of the towns and villages and also taught how to make the unclean person become clean. It also described when a person was clean again.
There is so much evidence from the bible that goes ignored by secularlists.
And in your mind all this is attributable to the bible? In reality most of it was common knowledge. The bible says you should quarantine diseased, and thats proof of the bible? The idea of sending away sick people, or locking a healthy family in the same house as one sick child, is almost eternal. To claim they originated from the bible is laughable.
Even so, the predictions are hardly impressive. Its almost instinctual to shy away from a sick person; you dont need have read the bible to avoid sick people.
Its amazing that you think the holy word of god is so great because it tells you to avoid sick people. Why not just mention penicillin? Your god seems like a retard...
Do you understand the scientific method? Do you understand the concept of "observe". Ive explained this to you before.
Gluons and quarks cannot be observed directly; their existence can only be inferred by observing their indirect effects. Yet, nuclear power still exists. Strange isnt it?
The the context of the scientific method you dont have to observe the literal event. If you had to, there wouldnt be much of a need for the scientific method. The whole point of the scientific method is to explain things you dont fully have the answer to, and in a reliable way. Usually you observe small evidence for a much larger concept, not the whole concept. Einsteins General Theory of Relativity didnt involve observing spacetime bend in the presence of mass; just its indirect effects. Yet if it were wrong our satellites wouldnt orbit the earth correctly. Strange isnt it? You can judge the age of a tree by its rings even if you didnt watch it grow the whole time.
You think your being smart and scientific by saying my evidences dont conform to the scientific method. But it just shows that you dont understand the scientific method. These evidences were first put forth by actual scientists, i just found them, so of course they conform to the scientific method. Or maybe youre just more qualified to judge what is and is not science than Ph.D's.
Do you understand the problems with your theories? (and you realize these arent my theories, right?) I have yet to see you explain ERV's, you just keep saying pics or it didnt happen. The only way you can explain that away is either a massively massive coincidence, or god trying to fuck with us. Or you could just throw out all of genetics, plug your ears, and scream "pics or it didnt happen!!!!!". I suspect you'll do that.
Yes I do ,I posted to make sure you do. Your side looks at evidence and then explain the evidence to fiot with the theory. We are human we don't like to admit wrong so we force things to fit our presuppositions.
That is exactly why theories are not factual because they have never seen it happen so we are back to believing something out of faith.
"Theories are not factual".
Its almost like your scientific understand is that of an 8th grader. I remember when my 8th grade teacher had to make this distinction. Would you like to play student and teacher again?
Let me guess, you think science has some sort of rank like hypothesis < theories < laws/facts.
Buuuut no. A theory cannot ever be a fact. A theory is a framework that describes a collection of facts. This is fundamental to the understanding of why your argument on "observation" is flawed. The facts are the observations, and the theories describe those observations. You dont observe a theory for the same reason that a theory is not a fact.
Einsteins general theory of relativity was an attempt to describe why all mass attracts all other mass, essentially to explain gravity. That observation is the basic fact (along with some other facts that differentiate it from newtonian gravity). You observe two bodies exerting force on each other. The theory that einstein used to explain that observation was the curvature of spacetime. Einstein did not witness the curvature of spacetime, he witnessed the result of it.
In summation: theories are not facts, but that doesnt exactly bolster your argument. Theories are pretty useful, ever benefited from germ theory? In reality, it shows your basic misunderstanding of science, and why no one should take you seriously. Science doesnt claim that theories are facts, and no one is saying it does. Except maybe you.
Merry day-that-the-church-decided-jesus-was-born-and-that-was-originally-a-pagan-holiday, everybody!
Your meaningless and worthless opinion is noted.No. He was a superstitious retard for asserting as certain fact that "God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."So you think Sir Isaac Newton one of the two best scientist who ever lived was a superstitious retard for decoding the bible ?
There is this one question that you, Sir Isaac Newton, or any Creationist, simply cannot answer. Rational people like me are not even asking for "proof" from intellectually incompetent and dishonest asshats like you (as you ask of us). The question is to the essential point of the foundation of your "theory," yet you are just baffled by the request for an explanation for it--you have NO EXPLANATION! IT'S INEXPLICABLE!What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity very strongly suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.
And when you fail again to produce, I will again claim to have delivered yet another headshot to your superstitious creation myth.
EDIT: Or cbirch2 will deliver the headshot when you make the demand that, "If you make a claim then prove it ,that is how it works." :LOL:
And it is. Look
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8"]RING-FUCKING-SPECIES[/ame]
Your assertion that micro-evolution cannot result in speciation is unambiguously refuted by the verifiable evidence; and your refusal to accept ring species as definitive evidence of macro-evolution is yet another example of Christian Creationist intellectual dishonesty.
Ignorance? Really? LOLsome!
Didn't your ignorant ass get punked right here?:
ANSWER: Most certainly YES!
Didn't your ignorant ass also get punked right here?:
ANSWER: Most certainly YES!
Didn't your ignorant ass get punked right here?:
ANSWER: Most certainly YES!
I am aware of Newton, and his theory of gravity, and his heresies. What of it? Despite his superstitions, Sir Isaac Newton's brilliance does not make you any less stupid or less intellectually dishonest.Do you even know who and what Sir Isaac Newton is famous for ?
I would say Sir Isaac Newton was much more brilliant then yourself.
WHAT GOD? You keep referencing this God thing, but you do not explain what this God thing is.What did put everything into motion if not God ?
So what? I will refer you once again to the weak anthropic principle.The sun the right distance from our planet. The moon the right distance and then to put them into to the correct motion and on the correct plane.
The right amount of gravity.
When it comes to this this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours, I'm not baffled in the least. This "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours is imaginary, and has no influence or relationship with objective reality outside of your pointy head.Yes who is not baffled by the creator of all things .
This "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours created nothing; there's nothing to figure out.All the greatest minds in the world from the past and today put together, can't figure out his creations.
Rational people like me are not even asking for "proof" from intellectually incompetent and dishonest asshats like you (as you ask of us). The question is to the essential point of the foundation of your "theory," yet you are just baffled by the request for an explanation for it--you have NO EXPLANATION! IT'S INEXPLICABLE!Do you think they could explain the creator ?
None of the beliefs I hold are faith. For me at least, the reason I don't admit to faith, is that I am incapable of faith. If it makes you feel better, think of it as being the way I was created by this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours.But me unlike you willingly admit that many of my beliefs are based in faith ...
Scientific explanations are more intellectually honest than the invention of this this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours, and asserting it's a better explanation than anything.... that is where your side has a problem because you think any explanation is ok and is science until you come up with a better explanation or prove the first explanation wrong.
Moving The Goal Post.Because an evolutionist tells me ring species are evidence of Macro-evolution when I know it's clearly not ,it's just changes within a family possibly through adaptations or cross breeding nothing that would come through mutations. It is simply absurd and I would say that person don't know the correct definition of Macro-evolution.
Macro-evolution is one family producing a new destinct family get it ? like a dinosaur producing a bird the burden of proof is on you the evolutionist to show it happened through natural selection and mutations as your paradigm calls for.
Nostradamus "had no way to know what [he] wrote about" when he published almost 1000 predictions in the 16th century; and with him, as with your Bible "information from the creator" there is an explanation ... they made up some crap and sometimes they got lucky.If you make a claim then prove it ,that is how it works.
Exactly so you should stop all references to your god immediately and until you can provide evidence of his existence.
I have provided writings of men that had no way to know what they wrote about at the time of the writing that is evidence they were inspired by a creator they got the information from the creator no other way to explain it.
DONE.Maybe you should look at this again.
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Atleast i don't present just an opinion,i can present things that can be confirmed without a doubt.
So what's the excuse for this this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?This is a joke right?
Nothing in the link even comes close fact, its barely even opinion. You can hold that opinion, but youd be blatantly wrong.Atleast i don't present just an opinion,i can present things that can be confirmed without a doubt.
For example, heres an excerpt from your website.
"2.Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements."
The proof that the bible claims this, supposedly, is Hebrews 11
"By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. "
The bible says that the world is made of things we cant see, and thats your proof that its right? You realize the idea of an atom, an indivisible and microscope unit, was first thought of by Democritus, right? This wasnt exactly a new thought in the bible. Not to mention the bible says nothing about particles, just invisible stuff.
Thats was only the second point, i didnt have to look far.
But you have to realize vocabularies of that time were not complete.
So what's the excuse for this this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours? How did "He" get so much of it wrong?They were not thourough enough to explain things the way we do today.
That's right.Science even has to be revamped to support new evidence but if the theory was wrong to begin with no matter how you explain it or add to it,it would still be wrong.
So what's the excuse for this this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours? How did "He" get so much of it wrong?3,500 years ago man did not know nearly what we know today and that is my point what was written in the scriptures many of the things were not confirmed until today.
So what's the excuse for this this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours? How did "He" get so much of it wrong?Man did not have the ability to see what was on the ocean floor or to see cells that make up the human body.
So what's the excuse for this this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours? How did "He" get so much of it wrong?They didn't know what caused disease or anything about bacteria.
This just you working more Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.But God gave them orders to put their waste outside of town or their camps.
The bible also said to avoid people with desease and quarantine them for the protection of the towns and villages and also taught how to make the unclean person become clean. It also described when a person was clean again.
Nonsense. It's only your intellectually dishonest and invalid conclusions that are ignored.There is so much evidence from the bible that goes ignored by secularlists.
This is a lie. Christian Creationists fit their evidence to their preconceived conclusions, scientists fit their conclusions to the evidence.Yes I do ,I posted to make sure you do. Your side looks at evidence and then explain the evidence to fiot with the theory.
The fact that Christian Creationists are human is not in dispute; neither is their dishonesty. Suggesting that all humans are as intellectually dishonest as you and your fellow Christian Creationists is just pathological projection.We are human we don't like to admit wrong so we force things to fit our presuppositions.
Wrong. Valid logic counts.That is exactly why theories are not factual because they have never seen it happen so we are back to believing something out of faith.
Archaeology has not confirmed in any manner that any community was ever "... destroyed By God and his army."Mans arrogance will be his downfall? History is the proof? What historical events are you referencing?
Religious people really, really, really should not try to use history as evidence of why their ideology is superior. What did christianity bring the world? Everyone was totally ignorant and society failed to progress. It was like this for hundreds and hundreds of years. And then once people realized christianity was retarded we had the invention of things like physics and calculus and the modern society.
Look at all the communities that were destroyed By God and his army that have been confirmed through archaeology.
Archaeology has not confirmed in any manner that any "... powerful nations ... were ever reduced to nearly nothing..." by "... By God and his army."Look at all the powerful nations that were reduced to nearly nothing.
What God? Certainly not this "God" of yours; your meaningless, imaginary creator of nothing, from whom nothing of value has ever issued--or could possibly have issued.Look what this nation is facing,if we continue to remove God from our society and the society will continue to crumble.
Well, it's not as if they'd just admit that they are a bunch of superstitious retards, and THAT, as well as the retarded superstitions of their neighbors, are the actual reasons for all their troubles.Israel admits that is what their downfall was several times.
Yes. Despite the fact they, like you, so tenaciously cling to their retarded superstition.The thing is it was prophecide concerning Israel but it is also prophecide Israel and the middle east will bring on armageddon and what we see in the middle east sure looks like it is being set up right in front of our eyes.
This is a joke right?
Nothing in the link even comes close fact, its barely even opinion. You can hold that opinion, but youd be blatantly wrong.
For example, heres an excerpt from your website.
"2.Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements."
The proof that the bible claims this, supposedly, is Hebrews 11
"By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. "
The bible says that the world is made of things we cant see, and thats your proof that its right? You realize the idea of an atom, an indivisible and microscope unit, was first thought of by Democritus, right? This wasnt exactly a new thought in the bible. Not to mention the bible says nothing about particles, just invisible stuff.
Thats was only the second point, i didnt have to look far.
But you have to realize vocabularies of that time were not complete. They were not thourough enough to explain things the way we do today.
Science even has to be revamped to support new evidence but if the theory was wrong to begin with no matter how you explain it or add to it,it would still be wrong.
3,500 years ago man did not know nearly what we know today and that is my point what was written in the scriptures many of the things were not confirmed until today.
Man did not have the ability to see what was on the ocean floor or to see cells that make up the human body.
They didn't know what caused disease or anything about bacteria. But God gave them orders to put their waste outside of town or their camps.
The bible also said to avoid people with desease and quarantine them for the protection of the towns and villages and also taught how to make the unclean person become clean. It also described when a person was clean again.
There is so much evidence from the bible that goes ignored by secularlists.
And in your mind all this is attributable to the bible? In reality most of it was common knowledge. The bible says you should quarantine diseased, and thats proof of the bible? The idea of sending away sick people, or locking a healthy family in the same house as one sick child, is almost eternal. To claim they originated from the bible is laughable.
Even so, the predictions are hardly impressive. Its almost instinctual to shy away from a sick person; you dont need have read the bible to avoid sick people.
Its amazing that you think the holy word of god is so great because it tells you to avoid sick people. Why not just mention penicillin? Your god seems like a retard...
Yes I do ,I posted to make sure you do. Your side looks at evidence and then explain the evidence to fiot with the theory. We are human we don't like to admit wrong so we force things to fit our presuppositions.
That is exactly why theories are not factual because they have never seen it happen so we are back to believing something out of faith.
"Theories are not factual".
Its almost like your scientific understand is that of an 8th grader. I remember when my 8th grade teacher had to make this distinction. Would you like to play student and teacher again?
Let me guess, you think science has some sort of rank like hypothesis < theories < laws/facts.
Buuuut no. A theory cannot ever be a fact. A theory is a framework that describes a collection of facts. This is fundamental to the understanding of why your argument on "observation" is flawed. The facts are the observations, and the theories describe those observations. You dont observe a theory for the same reason that a theory is not a fact.
Einsteins general theory of relativity was an attempt to describe why all mass attracts all other mass, essentially to explain gravity. That observation is the basic fact (along with some other facts that differentiate it from newtonian gravity). You observe two bodies exerting force on each other. The theory that einstein used to explain that observation was the curvature of spacetime. Einstein did not witness the curvature of spacetime, he witnessed the result of it.
In summation: theories are not facts, but that doesnt exactly bolster your argument. Theories are pretty useful, ever benefited from germ theory? In reality, it shows your basic misunderstanding of science, and why no one should take you seriously. Science doesnt claim that theories are facts, and no one is saying it does. Except maybe you.
Theories will never be fact because they are always finding errors with the theory. Theory will never be fact because they are only an opinion.
But you have to realize vocabularies of that time were not complete. They were not thourough enough to explain things the way we do today.
Science even has to be revamped to support new evidence but if the theory was wrong to begin with no matter how you explain it or add to it,it would still be wrong.
3,500 years ago man did not know nearly what we know today and that is my point what was written in the scriptures many of the things were not confirmed until today.
Man did not have the ability to see what was on the ocean floor or to see cells that make up the human body.
They didn't know what caused disease or anything about bacteria. But God gave them orders to put their waste outside of town or their camps.
The bible also said to avoid people with desease and quarantine them for the protection of the towns and villages and also taught how to make the unclean person become clean. It also described when a person was clean again.
There is so much evidence from the bible that goes ignored by secularlists.
And in your mind all this is attributable to the bible? In reality most of it was common knowledge. The bible says you should quarantine diseased, and thats proof of the bible? The idea of sending away sick people, or locking a healthy family in the same house as one sick child, is almost eternal. To claim they originated from the bible is laughable.
Even so, the predictions are hardly impressive. Its almost instinctual to shy away from a sick person; you dont need have read the bible to avoid sick people.
Its amazing that you think the holy word of god is so great because it tells you to avoid sick people. Why not just mention penicillin? Your god seems like a retard...
Believe it or not that is where people got the idea of quarantine.
Because some were purposely struck with disease as punishment. But the innocent he them to be able to protect themselves.
People had to learn what was contagious and what was not contagious.
