Science fiction can be proven to be fiction, because it is based on the proofs of scientific methodology. If you apply certain rules, it is easy to evaluate according to those rules. Who is to say what the right rules are when it comes to what is ultimate reality? Faith in God is not bound by the same rules as science, as it doesn't not attempt to build a case on scientific principles. It has its foundation in the practice of faith. Some people will look at a philosopher and think they just have an over active active imagination and a strong fantasy life as he contemplates beyond the obvious, others look at him and think he is a deep thinker. People tend to judge by their own belief systems. It is quite common for people who have failed at something to ridicule others who try, and then to have even more contempt for those who succeed. Few are those who can say, "It didn't work for me, but I really can't say about anyone else."
Science fiction cannot be proven to be fiction because we don't know every scientific principle. And if faith in God bases its foundation on the practice of faith, then you are in effect claiming that God exists because you have faith in It, i.e., It has no existence outside of your faith. And if you want to argue that God exists whether one has faith in It or not, one could also argue the same point regarding scientific principles.
These emotional people who have some sort of problem with religion may have been psychological wounded and need prayer but you ought to check your crackpot sources before you spew your anti-christian bile. Not only did the church know the world was a globe, but everyone at the time knew it also. The flat earth controversy was made up by Darwinists in the late 19th century. Whom we have discredited on other threads, since we now know there is no evidence of species to species evolution. See talk origins embarrassing admission on the evolution 1 creationists 0 thread. Frist of all in Isaiah 40.22 we see that the earth is a circle. the hebrew word for circle can also mean sphere. And in Luke we see that the second coming will come when some are asleep at night and some are working in the field. An indication of a rotating earth no? The myth that Christians in the Middle Ages thought the world was flat was given a massive boost by Andrew Dickson White's weighty tome The Warfare of Science with Theology. This book has become something of a running joke among historians of science and it is dutifully mentioned as a prime example of misinformation in the preface of most modern works on science and religion. The flat Earth is discussed in chapter 2 and one can almost sense White's confusion that hardly any of the sources support his hypothesis that Christians widely believed in it. He finds himself grudgingly admitting that Clement, Origene (my spell chechker ate this name) , Ambrose, Augustine, Isodore, Albertus Magnus and Aquinas all accepted the Earth was a globe - in other words none of the great doctors of the church had considered the matter in doubt. Although an analysis of what White actually says suggests he was aware that the flat Earth was largely a myth, he certainly gives an impression of ignorant Christians suppressing rational knowledge of its real shape It was never dogma Stu and you should learn the definition of the word before you use and you should learn your history http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm
Whom we have discredited on other threads, since we now know there is no evidence of species to species evolution. See talk origins embarassing admission on the evolution 1 creationists 0 thread. The delusional speak! Discredited? Nice empty claim. Talk origins embarassingly admitted there is no evidence for macroevolution????? You simply misread. AGAIN. Arguing from ignorance. Or your smoking crack... who knows. HERE is evidence for macroevolution, and proof that talkorgins made no admission. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ peace axeman
Science fiction can be proven to be fiction relative to what is know to be fiction and fact. Most scientists accept that science is not complete, so they usually speak of their poofs in a relative sense to what new and deeper understanding may come along. Faith in God is the path to God, not the foundation of God. First their is a concept of God. Then their is a concept of how to achieve a relationship with God. Then their is a practice. There is no practice until their is a concept of how to practice, and their is no concept of how to achieve a relationship of God until there is a concept of God. The validation of the concept of God comes via the practice of faith, but the foundation of faith is actually a human characteristic and quality. The choice to apply faith and follow that path is of course a personal decision and a choice, as it is a personal decision and choice to follow a path of non-faith. We as human beings are wired with both a purely intellectual side, and a faithful side. Many reject the faithful side, many apply it.
Well gee ART, HOW LONG ARE YOU GONNA DODGE THE HUGE HOLE STU POKED IN YOUR WEAK ARGUMENT? We FAITH "gilbert" to be the one true god above yours. DODGE DODGE DODGE... keep doing it. Its clear you cant answer for this contradiction in your belief system. Its all hogwash. peace axeman
The following is a quote from talk origins. "Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails." Axe you had a chance to explain this before from talk orgins. Does this not say that because microevolution is true we can guess "extrapolate" that macro evolution is true. So we see there is no proof of macro evolution. And did not darwin say proof of species to species evidence would be found in the fossil records. So how are darwinists looking to you. MY concluion is that at the moment the darwinists are failing. Now someday we may have proof of evolution but we have not found their missing link that Darwin said we would find. Now that we are on this thread care to explain how why stu and darwinists claim it was chruch dogma that the earth was flat. So far my research has shown that the major chruch fathers consider that the earth was a globe and I gave you quotes that Isaiah said it was a sphere/circle.
JEM:Does this not say that because microevolution is true we can guess "extrapolate" that macro evolution is true. So we see there is no proof of macro evolution. Read this sentence: Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes They claim there is no proof for macroevolution ***PROCESSES***. Then it goes on to say: However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes Basically...they state that its the SAME **PROCESS** which causes microevolution and macroevolution... therefore the antievolutionists arguments fails **UNLESS** they can find a good reason why the microevolution process would magically STOP working when it came to macroevolution. (Since its the same process). Does this not say that because microevolution is true we can guess "extrapolate" that macro evolution is true. To be clear.... their use of the word "extrapolate" here , does not mean that because microevolution is true, that macro is automatically true too. They are saying the PROCESS of microevolution, also applies to macroevolution. NO WHERE did they state there was no evidence for macroevolution, and further, I posted a link with a bunch of evidence (29+ ) for macroevolution from the SAME talkorigins website. Your claim that they admitted there is no evidence for macroevolution is patently FALSE. peace axeman
Axe- First of all he has no authority. Second of all he is confusing you. First I will show you that I could have written what he wrote and be just as accurate yet reversed. (no proof) However, anti-synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can not be extrapolated to between species changes. (Would you accept that as proof.) therefore the evolutionists arguments fails **UNLESS** they can find a good reason why the microevolution process would magically work when it came to macroevolution. (agian both sides no proof) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But now let us review what he said. What ever force works for within species change can be "extrapolated". to species to species change. Extrapolated in this context means can be "guessed to". So we can "guess" that what causes micro causes macro. This is based on the guesses of synthesists ( i presume pro macro evolution believers) Look how is this any different than before darwin. Is there anymore proof of species to species evolution or is it just what Darwin extrapolated can still be guessed. AXE please answer what about the talk origins statment is proof of species to species evolution? I will anwer it for you synthesists say it can be guessed. So since Darwin we still have no proof just guesses.