Once again you made another long spiel. And you really reached for that "intellectual dishonesty". I'm not going to debate folks that pull terms out of their asses. Plus you failed to see where I mentioned in the first post regarding what I experienced when I was younger, ignorance is bliss I take it?
The belief that it has anything to do with God, Gaia or Aquarius (depending on who you ask) is just another expression of the fact that religious beliefs tend to fill the gaps left by science. It's so obvious, it never ceases to amaze me that it still works so well. The reason is, again, increased gullibility: "If spontaneous healings cannot be explained, then they must be caused by God (as I define and picture HIM), because if they're caused by God, then I have proof that God exists, and that supports my worldview!"
Fill the gaps of evolution? You really want to get into a creationism vs. evolution debate don't you? Creationism is for those of us who are a bit too intelligent to fall for evolution. Calling all of us gullible when it is the fundamentalists that buy into nonsense BS is probably the "intellectual dishonesty" you were trying to pull out of thin air at the beginning of your post.
Explain how spontaneous healings happened three times within a short span of about five years to three people that live in the same small midwestern town. I can't. That is why I assume there must be a non-natural (I refuse to use supernatural) force that acted. It would blind of me to not take account of the fact they were praying for healing to their "God".
Note: There were another three or four cases that people claimed they lost cancer in our church as well. Since I have no evidence of if it was real or not, I am assuming that it was just the "church thing" to say you had cancer and then were healed.
Can I not look at that and say, "Wait a minute, science doesn't explain that!".
Oh, the old "but physics change all the time, and tomorrow we will discover that the laws of thermodynamics actually don't exist" argument.
Hah. You act as if it is something you've seen before and only idiots have mentioned it, nice attempt to blow me off. Physicists are looking for the next new revolution, and they think it might be time-related. This isn't something that just a few "fringe folks" find interesting.
What are you trying to tempt me to bring up the first and second law of thermodynamics to try and disprove evolution and the big bang? Or wait, lemme see, that's the only way you are going to accept creationism as a science, but if I do it, I'd be debating creationism vs. evolution.
Nice try. I'm not debating. Creationism to me is the rejection of evolution since it is inferior and doesn't take into account the laws and theories of science that it so ardently attempts to explain. I feel the best way to explain what we know now is to say that it was created.I find it funny you act as if the rejection of evolution is some grave scientific crime.
Creationism cannot answer even one of these questions in a scientific manner. It's ridiculous.
Man evolved from monkey, but what were we before that? Did the first forms of life on earth originate on Earth or did it come from a comet or perhaps a meteor that hit the planet? How many years did it take for the first multi-celled organisms to evolve into something fit for land?
And the biggest reason for rejecting evolution: Why and how did the eye evolve?
I don't know of evolutionists all answering the above questions the same either. I suppose you feel they should answer it "your way", but the fact is no evolutionist answers that question coherently. Or for that matter, scientifically, they all go off and create their own branch of evolution. I've seen many an odd thing for the last question, ranging from "it was the aliens" to "just like everything else was evolved".
Why does scientific manner not play in creationism? If you believe that there is a creator, you can use him to scientifically explain stuff that you otherwise cannot. Currently, if you are an evolutionist and run into something you cannot explain, you just don't deal with it till someone comes along with a solution that convinces your "scientific taste" and then you believe that. It is how evolution took off. It was for all the people that didn't want to deal with creationism.
Now that a generation or two of us have been force fed evolution, is it really that hard to accept that some of us are rejecting it? Maybe we find it is just as self-righteous as evolutionists found creationism in the past.
You've already proven it by throwing around links without having the spine to defend them.
Okay.. I'm stopping here. If my explanation that I do not want to get into a creationism vs. evolution isn't enough for you, you should simply say, "I cannot argue without getting into a debate about it".
What I said:
Quite a few of them don't appear to be self serving at all.
I suppose all three of those are gimmicks for the folks out there.
Now you went and explained that one of the experiments wasn't done correctly and so therefore is thrown out.
Suprise! I said I really didn't care. My argument is that those links did not appear to have an ulterior motive, so saying that all creationist arguments do, is rude and self-serving.
I'm not arguing the validity of some experiment that wasn't double blind, I'm not reaching for terms such as "intellectual dishonesty". I'm saying things like they are and you're assuming I'm saying more.
Because the creation or "faith in healing" "science" fits all the criteria for pseudoscience. The so-called scientists have repeatedly lied or misquoted statements by others. They confuse correlation with causation, they fake evidence to fit their hypothesis, yet they do consistently fail to even formulate a logically non-contradictory hypothesis, let alone a theory.
Care to share where they are all doing this? We've went over one, but I don't think they flat out lied, so maybe you can back up your assertion by showing us one where a creationist did lie.
What is contradictory about creationism? (Please don't threaten Genesis again, I'm growing tired of debating someone who thinks creationismism implies Christianity.
Only if it is used to discount claims without examining them. I have never done that.
And there in essence, is the end of the debate. You claim from above that creationists have different opinions on creationism. However you also feel that creationists are gullible. At some point in your life you threw off creationism as a psuedoscience and never bothered to think of it again. But what about the folks like myself that don't believe the Bible is the basis of creationism?
You threw us off as gullible
Now you claim you don't discount without examining. You lie. I'm done arguing this.
[ Parent ]