The scientific method is merely a formal methodology (or technqiue) concerning how to apply reason. You use reason in order to comprehend and communicate on this forum. You use reason every day to form opinions and make decisions. The scientific method works something like this: 1. Collect data by observation and/or experimentation. 2. Form a hypothesis about that. 3. Test it. 4. Predict. 5. See if your prediction pans out. Faith is a firm, stoic, and sacred conviction which is both adopted and maintained independent of physical evidence or logical proof. It is also an assumption of absolute accuracy and inerrent authority which must never be questioned. Science, on the other hand, is a matter of skeptical inquiry, in which nothing is sacred, and where even authority opinion is suspect. Its an objective method of measurably or verifiably improving our understanding of physical nature in practical application, or mathematics, or through experimentation and observation, and proposing falsifiable hypotheses explaining the facts in a theoretical framework to be subjected to a perpetual battery of critical analysis in peer review. Science parallels the rationalist perspective in that 'belief' should be tentative, conditional, and restricted only to that which is directly- supportable by logic or evidence; that, while many things may be considered possible, nothing should be positively believed unless positively indicated via the scientific method, and all assumptions must be questioned. In short, scientific methodology is the antithesis of faith, opposites in every respect
That would be pointless though. If he made a family that loved Him because he made them that way it would be robots. If he made the best of a bad situation by turning it into a test where those who love Him do so even in the face of persecution and death then that's a real family... He is getting a real family out of the deal and He had to become human for awhile and undergo a permanent change in order to achieve that too...
Why would the god create "bad situation" first? Then test the people to see who will worship him? Than that god is a pointless because he could just create everyone to worship him first. So you are saying it is boring for the god to make all the people worship him first. So he had to make a bad situation, so he can watch people make a mistake so they can have torture in hell? That is very evil and mean.
Then I failed to properly word my thoughts. We have science that suggests the origin of things. Evolution is a theory. The Bible is also a theory. I think people who are searching for answers in religious texts need to apply the appropriate cultural filters that the book was written in and find the underlying meaning of the message conveying in the story. The bible says stone adulterers. The message is that adultery is considered wrong in that society. The bible says don't eat certain food. The message is that the forbidden food is more likely to make u sick either immediately or over time. Remember that all holy books were actually forms of a constitution to form a government around. Ditch the formatting of the message and receive the message.
Evolution is a fact and scientific theory substantiated by fact. The Bible is not. You show above one of many ways in which the Bible says kill . Ditch the formatting of the Bible message and receive the message? Are you sure?
I just don't like arguing that much. The thing is that I believe that God made space and time and not that long ago. These "science" people will tell me I'm stupid, call me a flat earther, and tell me that I should not be allowed to vote let alone talk to small children about it... what the heck, I looked at the theories, looked at the logical underpinnings, looked at the evidence, applied Occam's razor and come down on the Creation side... I'm much better for it, they are wasting brain cpu cycles overlaying evolution theory on EVERYTHING while I'm going around like a guy that just took a hit on some good hash going "wow, what a fantastic place this is". I'm freed up to learn more of what it takes to have a great life.
I'm not sure anyone would be better off for deciding to put themselves in denial of the facts or remain in ignorance of things they say they looked at.
Can u demonstrate the unbroken chain from the original ape to modern man? Last time I checked that couldn't be done. Something about a missing link. Until that link is found evolution is a loose collection of clues that lead in a rather general direction. The bible says kill based in the paradigm of the culture of the day. As I stated before, that must be filtered. Why did they want to deter this behavior enough to make it a capital crime? Most of our great scientists and philosophers of the past were dead wrong about certain things. They did the best they could with the information and resources they had available to them at the time.
we know through scientific inquiry that light from stars billions of light years away is just hitting earth. what kind of mind contortion, ie willful ignorance, does someone like you use to reject that evidence? "With the Hubble telescope, using an exposure time of several hours, one can see stars to about 30th magnitude. This is about 10 billion times fainter than our Sun, if it were 32.6 light years away. The brightness of any object falls off as the square of the distance from the observer, so the Hubble telescope could just see our Sun if it were 3.26 million light years away. If you were to replace our Sun with a star a million times brighter, it could be seen about a thousand times further away, i.e., about 3 billion light years.In answer to your last question, since this estimate is only for the very brightest stars, and since the distance I obtained is still less than the size of the visible Universe (about 15 billion light years), there are surely many faint stars at great distances which we cannot see. "
Didn't you say 'Ditch the formatting and receive the message'. The only message you get from Evolution is what..? "Something about a missing link" ? You have The Theory of Evolution as a fact and as scientific theory and as such it's a predicting mechanism which has continuously lead to advancements in knowledge and understanding in medicine , biology and the world around us and has done so over generations. It is specific. That is in no way a " lead in a rather general direction". Even if that is or is not your missing link , is that as far as Evolution goes? Does one simply dismiss all the mountains of information, learning understanding and overwhelming evidence contained within it in favor of anything which seems controversial such as "Something about a missing link." And after you've "filtered" that message of Evolution what do you get? One of life and survival , or kill and death ? Then again, did you say 'Ditch the formatting and receive the message'. ? And after you've "filtered" that message in the Bible what do you get? One of life and survival , or kill and death ? How do you filter kill to mean something other than kill? I think it's way past time to stop comparing scientific knowledge with philosophical story books that were full of dead wrong ideas even when they were first made up , particularly as there was plenty of information around at that time on what a humane civilization would look like. Ignoring or dismissing fact and scientific theory in order to present a picture of similar incapability to that catalogue of wrong ideas and promotion of unthinking superstition which is the bible, is doing the best they could ? I suggest it wasn't then and it isn't now. btw. Unlike Holy books and Bibles, the article you show here does have a far more suitably reasoned approach on how one might assess such things. Wouldn't you say ?