Science is best supported by?

@pettytalk said
Who says I have to post answers? How about questions? Can I question your lack of answers?

If I post that "science is best supported by question mark? Is that an answer or a question? And if you don't have an answer perhaps you don't have a valid question. It's a matter of a question on a question without an answer.

Questions, after all, basically, are the best suppo ...[text shortened]... ave the space to allow a Three-Rings Circus to perform all the typical acts, clowns notwithstanding.

What “facts” about the origins of the world and everything in it do you as a Christian have PettyTalk?

@kellyjay said
Well, the first few words of the Bible are true meaning than all of the others are reasonable as well due to the foundation for them was laid. It is just as easy to say the same thing if they are not wrong then the foundation for them has been false. So this is an either-or-binary choice, true or not, and simply saying what we believe is not evidence one way or the other. ...[text shortened]... ou walk out your worldview daily on those things you believe, but you consider that not worthy much?

You confuse reasons and causes. Again. There is nothing coherent enough in what you say to answer it.

@pettytalk said
Here too we have a communication failure. It was my failure. It was my mistake of a case of mistaken perception of the wrong-person incident. I apologize for this.

I agree and concur with the necessity and allowance for cross-discussions among the interlocutors involved. Looking back at my beginning here, it was a matter of my asking for the 'ball', which has now made me ...[text shortened]... that I seem to have lost my good looks too, because some birdwatcher sees me with ruffled feathers.

No affront taken. We all lose the thread, sometimes.

@moonbus said
You confuse reasons and causes. Again. There is nothing coherent enough in what you say to answer it.

For one who cannot tell the difference between a thought-out process and a mindless one, you have no room for talking about coherence.

@kellyjay said
For one who cannot tell the difference between a thought-out process and a mindless one, you have no room for talking about coherence.

I can tell the difference. You're the one who keeps inserting minds into places where there aren't any. There is no mind pushing molecules around.

@moonbus said
I can tell the difference. You're the one who keeps inserting minds into places where there aren't any. There is no mind pushing molecules around.

Really, as I pointed out my daughter has two devices that make up for her body’s ability to digest food tracking her blood sugar that a healthy body does. A lot of time effort and energy not to mention money went into the design of both devices keeping her alive. You don’t recognize the importance of the design within our bodies so you suppress it and refuse to acknowledge what is going on. You are plain and simple refusing to accept what is right in-front of you not due to lack of evidence but philosophical reasons.

@kellyjay said
Well, the first few words of the Bible are true meaning than all of the others are reasonable as well due to the foundation for them was laid. It is just as easy to say the same thing if they are not wrong then the foundation for them has been false. So this is an either-or-binary choice, true or not, and simply saying what we believe is not evidence one way or the other. ...[text shortened]... ou walk out your worldview daily on those things you believe, but you consider that not worthy much?

I've given this a few minutes to try to decipher your even worse than usual English. I think you're saying that something is either true or it isn't, which is right out of the school of the blindingly obvious, and if you're saying that there is no evidence for your beliefs, then it might as well be me talking.

Not having a 'reason' is not 'denial' of anything, since there is nothing to deny except belief, and belief, as I've said so many times before, is only belief, and has no substance, and as others have asked here, why does there need to be a 'reason' for anything, or 'belief' in anything?

Your third paragraph makes no sense whatsoever, so I'll leave you with the most recent logical fault in your beliefs that comes to mind, since you've asked for one: You believe that killing is sinful (Thou shalt not kill, yes?) , you also believe that your god decrees/decides/appoints when someone will die. How, therefore, can killing someone be a sin, since the killer is only doing your gods' will, and your god must be guiding the hand of the killer?

@kellyjay said
If you don’t care what I believe why ask about what I am talking about? You are not very consistent!

We were discussing my beliefs, whatever you think they are, we weren't discussing your beliefs.

@kellyjay said
For one who cannot tell the difference between a thought-out process and a mindless one, you have no room for talking about coherence.

What “facts” do we Christians have about creation KellyJay?

@kellyjay said
Really, as I pointed out my daughter has two devices that make up for her body’s ability to digest food tracking her blood sugar that a healthy body does. A lot of time effort and energy not to mention money went into the design of both devices keeping her alive. You don’t recognize the importance of the design within our bodies so you suppress it and refuse to acknowledge ...[text shortened]... using to accept what is right in-front of you not due to lack of evidence but philosophical reasons.

I recognize the complexity of our bodies. Organic complexity does not imply design the way mechanical complexity does. It's a false analogy, to compare a human-designed device with a naturally occurring organism.

@kellyjay said
Really, as I pointed out my daughter has two devices that make up for her body’s ability to digest food tracking her blood sugar that a healthy body does. A lot of time effort and energy not to mention money went into the design of both devices keeping her alive. You don’t recognize the importance of the design within our bodies so you suppress it and refuse to acknowledge ...[text shortened]... using to accept what is right in-front of you not due to lack of evidence but philosophical reasons.

I like what Richard Dawkins said: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”.

In other words, many of us who think evolution is correct do not think there is any design to our bodies. [I am one.]

The issue has been hotly debated by brilliant minds on both sides for over 100 years.

So, forgive me when I laugh at rhetoric such as, "plain and simple refusing to accept what is right in-front of you" because the issue is not at all an easy one, as much as you'd like to pretend otherwise.

You're simply not doing the issue justice, that's all.

@indonesia-phil said
I've given this a few minutes to try to decipher your even worse than usual English. I think you're saying that something is either true or it isn't, which is right out of the school of the blindingly obvious, and if you're saying that there is no evidence for your beliefs, then it might as well be me talking.

Not having a 'reason' is not 'denial' of anything, sinc ...[text shortened]... since the killer is only doing your gods' will, and your god must be guiding the hand of the killer?

Why are you responding to things I say?

@bigdogg said
I like what Richard Dawkins said: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”.

In other words, many of us who think evolution is correct do not think there is any design to our bodies. [I am one.]

The issue has been hotly debated by brilliant minds on both sides for over 100 years.

So, forgive me ...[text shortened]... s much as you'd like to pretend otherwise.

You're simply not doing the issue justice, that's all.

It appeals to the notion that no designer is required, but nothing about what he says suggests it isn’t designed due to what he sees. That he acknowledges looks designed!

@moonbus said
I recognize the complexity of our bodies. Organic complexity does not imply design the way mechanical complexity does. It's a false analogy, to compare a human-designed device with a naturally occurring organism.

You don’t recognize design the only reason you accept human design is because you know we did it, nothing about its design means squat to you so that you can point to something about it and say this could not occur on its own.

@indonesia-phil said
We were discussing my beliefs, whatever you think they are, we weren't discussing your beliefs.

Okay talk about your beliefs.