Summations Only

Ananias and Sapphira were not punished for "selfishness and greed"as you claimed.They were punished for lying to the Holy Spirit, which is said quite plainly in the passage you quoted: Jesus did not advocate communism. There is one description of the church VOLUNTARILY sharing among themselves, it is not PRESCRIBED, it is not advocated or taught, and obviously they did not include people outside the church.

Yes, it's a "belief lockdown," it's RIGHTLY a belief lockdown. She has EVIDENCE of God and His word, she rightly KNOWS there is no "evidence" against His word, even if she can't prove it. She has enough faith to avoid being sucked into the Evo Illusion.

Bible believers do not lack discrimination or the ability to judge by evidence or anything having to do with true science,. We hold our faith BY evidence as a matter of fact, it's been proved to us over and over again in our experience.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This is pernicious nonsense, Tangle. Every time somebody says this it's painfully clear how little any of you understand.No it is NOT about true science it is ONLY about the fake "science" that is used to justify evolution. You guys are unable to sort it out, you take it all as one indigestible lump, but MOST true science has nothing whatever to do with evolution. Zip, nada.I need to get back to the DNA thread. It's blissfully free of evolutionist fantasy. Not that somebody couldn't throw some in and think they're just doing science, but it would all be interpretive fantasy without their recognizing it.Dr. Adequate's geology course is a joy until he gets into the evolutionist fairy tale WAY into the course, which he didn't have to do, he could have kept it as pure science as all the rest of it was/is.Science is good stuff. Evolution is a hideous nightmare that got imposed on science.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So when a YEC say that the earth is 6,000 old which invalidates the entire field of geology, great chunks of physics and all of astronomy that's me not understanding science?

It doesn't invalidate the field of geology at all, the age of the earth is entirely an interpretive scheme. The only actual science it contradicts is radiometric dating, which someday will be proved to be false but meanwhile that's the only science that takes a hit. Everything else is interpretation or theory. Everything in geology is quite easily accommodated in 6000 years. You only THINK the billions of years has been scientifically established. It's all smoke and mirrors.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You're going to have to take this on faith, Faith; trust me, for the earth to be only 6,000 years old the entirety of the subject of geology is wrong. None of it works, it's dead. Followed by pretty much the entirety of all scientific knowledge - everything.Hundreds of years of study, by millions of scientists, across multiple disciplines with millions of experiments to prove their ideas beyond reasonable doubt - but you know it's wrong because you just KNOW it. Fabulous.Edited by Tangle, : Spelling....

Since there is no 6000 year old genetic 'bottleneck' in humans, it would also invalidate Genetics.

Hi Faith, and welcome back. Ah, then you will be able to explain the correlations:
Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1I can post them step by step here if you don't want (or can't) tackle it on that thread.The task is not just to explain how each system is wrong in it's evidence and conclusions for time that has elapsed, but the correlations between the different methods: why they get the same results.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

It isn't about the creation-evolution debate. It is about human nature and about how people with strong beliefs react when they encounter evidence that is contrary to those beliefs.As far as I know, this was an entertainment program on TV. I presume that the creationists participated voluntarily - they perhaps got a free vacation out of it. I'm sure that they knew well in advance that they were going to have their beliefs challenged.Obviously, I don't know what went on that was not on the video. What I saw on the video was scientists presenting their evidence, but not directly attacking the beliefs of the participants. For example, Jerry Coyne vehemently attacks religion on his blog, but I did not see any of that on the video. He did ask hard questions about the ark story - as in hard for creationists to answer. She appears to be more open minded, more willing to confront the evidence and rethink her beliefs. That is what I see as a positive about her. What she believed at the start, and what she finally believes when she has worked through this, are her choices and no concern of mine. But, as an educator, I do have an appreciation from people who are willing to reconsider their views in the light of new evidence.

Sorry Faith but your very posts in this thread refute your position.You KNOW the TRUTH, and so cannot be swayed by facts or evidence. That is why a Creationist can never honestly be a scientist.

Horsefeathers! By 1830 the protogeologists in England and France had given up on a young earth, a lifetime before radioactivity was even discovered. And several of them, like William Buckland, were lifelong Christians and defenders of the faith.

Also, why any discussion with Faith is a waste of time. Rational discussion is impossible with her and Forever.Faiths comments on another thread about the Catholic church and the inquisition should disqualify her as being a person one can have a rational conversation with.

--Percy

From this, and previous posts, you have demonstrated (among other things) that you do not know what a theory is in science.I have included some definitions below which might help you to better understand these terms.Most importantly, a theory is not a guess, or, as you seem to imply, a wild-ass guess. If you wish to discuss science, it would be appropriate for you to actually learn something about it, and these definitions are a good place to start.-----------------------------

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

​

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

​

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

​

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."

​

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

​

Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.

​

The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!

​

So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source

​

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.

​

Conjecture: speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.

​

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not be able to play"

​