30 Nov 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeMy wife is just fine, now. Her treatments are over and she only has
Really, well I don't like to put it like this, but tell me which part of the bible explains how to treat your wife's cancer.
Try again without being so blindingly obviously catastrophically wrong.
to take a pill for the next five years to prevent the cancer from
returning. God provided doctors that believed in God and the power
of prayer for her treatment.
01 Dec 11
Creation Science 101, put to song:
God made the world in 7 days!
Well that's one week to be specific
Now that's what I call scientific!
Say Hallelujah sing his praise!
four-thoudsand-forty-two BC
On Monday August 27
He made the earth and sky and heaven
Then he punched out at 5:03
Then he made adam and then Eve
A garden for them to inhabit
The apple right where Eve could grab it!
And I got proof cause I believe
Creation Science...
Oh 1, in the beginning it begun
And you are just beginning to
educate yourself when you
shun evolution
Then Cain and Able he Begat
Who begat all of the rest of us
Which means they must have been incestuous
I'm gonna have to pray about that
.
.
.
.
.
And so on
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
01 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsWell I am very pleased to hear that, but she is only cured, because of science and scientific enquiry.
My wife is just fine, now. Her treatments are over and she only has
to take a pill for the next five years to prevent the cancer from
returning. God provided doctors that believed in God and the power
of prayer for her treatment.
Nowhere in the bible does it tell you how to cure cancer.
And until science broke off the shackles of religious dogma and developed the technology, knowledge
and medicine that we have today, and all we had was prayer and faith in god, cancer was a death sentence.
It isn't (always) any more because we have discovered things and developed technology that allows us to
fight it.
And a big part of the technology and medicine that was used, is based on evolutionary biology, and the
physics of the standard model, the big bang theory.
Science works, and you may well thank god that it did. But that's an insult to every scientist who dedicated their
lives to discovering the knowledge and developing the technology that enabled your wife to be cured.
If they all still believed in YEC, and creationism, we wouldn't have the treatments we have now.
And the consequences of that you can figure out yourself.
When I talk about the dangers of blind faith and religion and the rejection of rationality....
THIS is what I am talking about.
So go on believing your fairy tale if it makes you happy, and pray to your imaginary god that people keep rejecting
your religion and keep working to cure diseases like cancer. Because science is the only thing that has any track record
of actually working.
01 Dec 11
Originally posted by googlefudge"Modern science ... finds its origins in Christianity."
Well I am very pleased to hear that, but she is only cured, because of science and scientific enquiry.
Nowhere in the bible does it tell you how to cure cancer.
And until science broke off the shackles of religious dogma and developed the technology, knowledge
and medicine that we have today, and all we had was prayer and faith in god, cancer was ...[text shortened]... ke cancer. Because science is the only thing that has any track record
of actually working.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
01 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindspiffle, modern science has origins far older than Christianity.
"Modern science ... finds its origins in Christianity."
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html
And even if it were true, who cares?
That fact that some scientists were/are Christian (as well as numerous other faiths) neither contradicts or negates any of the points I made.
02 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeOh, I thought it completely refuted your points.
piffle, modern science has origins far older than Christianity.
And even if it were true, who cares?
That fact that some scientists were/are Christian (as well as numerous other faiths) neither contradicts or negates any of the points I made.
Anyway, it was God's will. HalleluYah !!!
02 Dec 11
Originally posted by amolv06Brilliant post!!
Creation Science 101, put to song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs
God made the world in 7 days!
Well that's one week to be specific
Now that's what I call scientific!
Say Hallelujah sing his praise!
four-thoudsand-forty-two BC
On Monday August 27
He made the earth and sky and heaven
Then he punched out at 5:03
Then he made adam an ...[text shortened]... ey must have been incestuous
I'm gonna have to pray about that
.
.
.
.
.
And so on
I dont have enough thumbs to put up in support of that post.
After all, spirituality should be entertaining and funny, which you have succeeded in doing on both accounts. Thanks mate 😉
02 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou said, "It doesn't matter whether or not God is the Creator. The question is whether or not program code can arise without intelligence. You claim it cant because you are afraid that if it can, your religion is a pile of nonsense. But your argument was that you are ignorant of ways in which code can arise without intelligence. I have pointed out that your ignorance is wilful ignorance, and thus your argument is flawed."
Belief is not required, only understanding.
[b]It does not do anything as far as I am concerned.
Because you don't understand what it is. You cannot possibly know if it does anything if you remain wilfully ignorant of what it is.
And what Darwin thought was natural selection turns out to be changes due
to coded information acting to adapt t have pointed out that your ignorance is wilful ignorance, and thus your argument is flawed.
!. To me it does matter whether or not God is the Creator.
2. I agree that the question is whether or not program code can arise
without intelligence. However your answer that my religion is a pile of
nonsense does not even attempt to answer that question.
3. You declare my argument is flawed because it relies on wilful ignorance
of ways in which code can arise without intelligence. But it seems that
everyone else, including yourself, must also be wilfully ingnorant.
4. What you ignore is that the only sure way we know of producing
program code is by an intelligent being, like man. So why not answer
the question by what we do know? It seems clear to me that answer
must be an intelligent being did it, until proven wrong.
P.S. For the wilfully ignorant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_language
03 Dec 11
Once again we see the god of the gaps argument.
Just because we don't have the answer to every single question, then you maintain it must be god that did it. This was the same kind of thought process that lead to the torture of Galileo.
Very soon your god of the gaps is going to have nowhere to hide.