Thundercrack85
Avenger
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2009
- Messages
- 21,668
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 33
I imagine he's a Jack Chick fan.
You don't need a degree to understand basic logic or science. As for my tastes outside politics, I read Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, and Fantastic Four comics as a kid. I have all the currently-released MCU films on Blu-Ray, plus several others. My favorites of Phase One were the first "Iron Man" and "Captain America: The First Avenger".You're as clueless about Sarah Palin as you are about the basic principles of evolution.
Do you even like comic books/comic book movies? Or are you here to preach?
I was given those tracts of his as a kid, and they scared the crap out of me. That man gives Christ and Christians a terrible reputation.I imagine he's a Jack Chick fan.
I was given those tracts of his as a kid, and they scared the crap out of me. That man gives Christ and Christians a terrible reputation.![]()
In all fairness, text alone doesn't always convey the intended meaning of a person's thoughts. I'm more than willing to answer questions via PM, so long as folks remain civil.Then you might want to reevaluate how you present yourself.
You don't need a degree to understand basic logic or science.
I mean general scientific principles. Degrees may be somewhat necessary for high-paying careers, but people can learn about the various sciences without getting into debt from college courses and such.Do you mean paleontology or biology? Did you know that what you call "basic science" is actually a series of different, specialized fields and, yes, you do need degrees to understand them, because you can't get a job specializing in those areas without one.
I'm not against intellectualism, just naturalism, secular humanism, uniformitarianism, and far-left liberalism.I hate how the right is so proud of their anti-intellectualism.
My denial is dependent on what kind of "evolution" you're talking about. I've read about and watched lots of videos on the supposed "evidence", but I interpret it differently because I'm not a naturalist or secularist.
You're being absurd, and I'm fairly convinced you're just trolling with these sorts of threads.
The purpose of science is to examine what currently happens in the world around us, and use that data to better mankind. Naturalism is a religion that insists only the physical world exists; that worldview leads to many warped conclusions. You don't need naturalism to comprehend science or be intelligent.All science is based on naturalism. If it wasn't, scientists wouldn't be able to make predictions about anything.
The purpose of science is to examine what currently happens in the world around us, and use that data to better mankind. Naturalism is a religion that insists only the physical world exists; that worldview leads to many warped conclusions. You don't need naturalism to comprehend science or be intelligent.
That's what Christian apologetics is all about: providing scientific evidence that backs up Biblical claims. Unfortunately, many atheists either twist it with their naturalistic worldview, or simply don't bother with it at the start.Here's what you should do - if you believe something OTHER than the physical world exists? Prove it!!
Gravity itself is invisible; its affect on objects serve as evidence of its reality beyond a reasonable doubt. By the same principle, the reality of God can be seen through the lives of those who truly trust Him (not super-religious bashers like the Westboro Baptists).There isn't anyone that goes around saying "well the theory of gravity is based on NATURALISM, how do we know that it really isn't a giant supernatural transcendent turtle that holds the Earth up!!"
No one says that.
I respectfully disagree. The key to testing any hypothesis is proving it right beyond a reasonable doubt, not assuming its possibly wrong right away.A key component in scientific claims is falsifiability. In other words, when someone presents a hypothesis they'd like to test, that hypothesis must be falsifiability; as in, there must be a way to test or find evidence that could prove the hypothesis wrong.
I never said religion and science were the same, just that science could be used to verify some religious claims.If x is actually just you saying, my god, my religion, something BEYOND the physical, something somehow not part of the material world,... what you do is you castrate YOUR OWN CLAIM from any way in which it can be tested. It CANNOT be science until you can come up with a way to falsify it, and if it were falsifiable it would be part of the PHYSICAL WORLD!
By looking at its affects on the physical world. If you're truly a seeker in this regard, watch this clip on the Biblical Flood, and send me your feedback via PM.How do you test something that is apart from the physical world?
By looking at its affects on the physical world. If you're truly a seeker in this regard, watch this clip on the Biblical Flood, and send me your feedback via PM.
Christian apologetics uses science to verify the Bible, and that clip is number 4 of 13, after more basic ideas are fleshed out.ETA: I watched the first 15 minutes of your video, within that time the video made the wrong assumption that the bible is somehow fact.
Agreed.This country was founded on having the freedom to believe what you want. So if she wants to believe some wacko, crazy idea then I am all for her doing that 100% in PUBLIC. Because that's true freedom.
Christian apologetics uses science to verify the Bible, and that clip is number 4 of 13, after more basic ideas are fleshed out.
The key to this is watching the whole thing, not stopping a few minutes in because you don't like one aspect. The questions you raised are all addressed in that one segment.
I'm starting a separate thread for this, so it doesn't keep derailing the Palin topic.There "proof" of god being real was questionable as well(ie the universe is perfect therefore there must be a god, proof done. It doesn't even take into consideration that sure their might be a god but it's not the god we believe in, it just assumes that since the universe is perfect our god and bible are somehow legit, that is terrible logic)
This thread in itself is a bit of a joke. It was bound to get derailed given the type of person Sarah Palin is and the fact that she is a running joke in the US (and Canada...and the world).
I don't understand why everyone wants to challenge him on evolution and religious issues in threads that are not related to those issues. We all have differences of opinion and different beliefs, so I do not see the need to disregard his opinion or bash his threads, particularly when those threads have little/nothing to do with his beliefs. I have seen the way that he responds to several people and I have yet to see him use name calling or other techniques to belittle the people that he is interacting with.