Question for the biblical religious

[luvfightgame]

Here's the definition of philosophy...
a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means
b: a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war>



Here's the definition of science....
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation [scientific method], and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study."4


It more closely resembles philosophy because there are no experiments, or observations that can be attributed to this. It's simply speculation. Discoveries are made in science, there have been 0 evolutionary discoveries. Only speculation. Even if the "discoveries" in archeology were legit that related to evolution. They were archeology, not scientific. Finding bones and then saying how they got there isn't science.

[Kirkland Laing]

Here's the definition of philosophy...
a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means
b: a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war>



Here's the definition of science....
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation [scientific method], and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study."4


It more closely resembles philosophy because there are no experiments, or observations that can be attributed to this. It's simply speculation. Discoveries are made in science, there have been 0 evolutionary discoveries. Only speculation. Even if the "discoveries" in archeology were legit that related to evolution. They were archeology, not scientific. Finding bones and then saying how they got there isn't science.

Considering you're questioning evolution from an evidence-based perspective, what evidence do we have that god exists? If you believe the Bible is literal truth and thus that the earth is only a few thousand years old, how do you explain the existence on earth of fossils that are millions of years old? The leaders of the various Christian franchises claim that they were put there by god to test the faith of believers. Have you any better explanation?

[luvfightgame]

Here's the definition of philosophy...
a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means
b: a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war>



Here's the definition of science....
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation [scientific method], and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study."4


It more closely resembles philosophy because there are no experiments, or observations that can be attributed to this. It's simply speculation. Discoveries are made in science, there have been 0 evolutionary discoveries. Only speculation. Even if the "discoveries" in archeology were legit that related to evolution. They were archeology, not scientific. Finding bones and then saying how they got there isn't science.

Considering you're questioning evolution from an evidence-based perspective, what evidence do we have that god exists? If you believe the Bible is literal truth and thus that the earth is only a few thousand years old, how do you explain the existence on earth of fossils that are millions of years old? The leaders of the various Christian franchises claim that they were put there by god to test the faith of believers. Have you any better explanation?

First I am not trying to prove God exists. It can't be done. It is an act of faith to believe in God. I acknowledge that. However, from an evidence base we are on the same footing but evolutionists NEVER acknowledge that.

Second point... I have never seen conclusive evidence that there are millions of year old fossils. The carbon dating methods used to date fossils are at best able to calculate up to 10,000 years. The use of dating fossils by the geological column is circular reasoning. The geological column doesn't exist anywhere but textbooks.

As far as beliefs by different believers, they differ greatly. One main point about that is some people don't need any real solid answers to believe in God, so they will take some really unusual stances on these scientific matters. I don't and couldn't buy those type of answers. What you will find is a similair acceptance of evolutionary beliefs. If you use the same scale to measure evidence they are both nothing more than belief systems. It's the argument that one is more "scientific" than the other that I have a problem with. I hope to have a spirited debate regarding this without any offense taken. So I apologize in advance if I offend. Anyways that's my position on that.

[Kirkland Laing]

First I am not trying to prove God exists. It can't be done. It is an act of faith to believe in God. I acknowledge that. However, from an evidence base we are on the same footing but evolutionists NEVER acknowledge that.

Second point... I have never seen conclusive evidence that there are millions of year old fossils. The carbon dating methods used to date fossils are at best able to calculate up to 10,000 years. The use of dating fossils by the geological column is circular reasoning. The geological column doesn't exist anywhere but textbooks.

As far as beliefs by different believers, they differ greatly. One main point about that is some people don't need any real solid answers to believe in God, so they will take some really unusual stances on these scientific matters. I don't and couldn't buy those type of answers. What you will find is a similair acceptance of evolutionary beliefs. If you use the same scale to measure evidence they are both nothing more than belief systems. It's the argument that one is more "scientific" than the other that I have a problem with. I hope to have a spirited debate regarding this without any offense taken. So I apologize in advance if I offend. Anyways that's my position on that.

We're not on an equal basis on evidence. There is endless evidence for evolution and zero evidence for a god.

Carbon dating can be inaccurate. For example rocks which are shown by carbon dating to be four billion years old may be as little as three and a half billion years old, maybe even less. If you don't like carbon dating try potassium-argon dating. That's what's commonly used these days on samples over 100 000 years old.

I'm not sure how you can argue that evolution theory isn't scientific.

[Andre]

Why do the police use physics now?

As in one documented case, they can be lead right to one door, The killers.

Or someones lost in the outback and they are pin pointed on a map.

how do some poeple get a miracle cure from just a belife system?

Why does the truth enliven some but sicken others?

How come there is a law of attraction. What you think for long enough happens but If you cant control your thoughts then what you fear the most can happen.

Why do atoms appear and dissapear from view?

How does real love conqure all fear?

I think the rule is ,all energy isnt just limited to one area. Like within physicality only.

Unless the Be-ing behind the energy insists that there is only one point ,then the energy he omits and the energies around him obeys him and its impossible for him to see further than his choice at that moment.

Your point of view /is your point of control.That is the only reason you are here.


Theres two sides to Evolution macro and micro.
OF course we evolve but not into other things just other forms.
IAM THAT I AM.