Replacing Darwin [Spirituality & Religion]

@SW-User I wouldn't bother unless there's a remedial version for grade school dropouts.

@SW-User You could force feed the books to creationist, present the most up to date information and detailed explanations of how the processes work and explain definitively how the principles and laws physics and chemistry haven't changed and how they are being continually tested; and these people would still claim that it's all been misinterpreted.

If it don't agree with their interpretation of the bible, they will flat out deny the science.

@Bushranger [quote]You could force feed the books to creationist, present the most up to date information and detailed explanations of how the processes work and explain definitively how the principles and laws physics and chemistry haven't changed and how they are being continually tested; and these people would still claim that it's all been misinterpreted. [/quote]

This would be true in that the people who wrote those books had very little, if that, understanding of science.

@GodSpeed63 Explain what's scientific about the "Goddidit" explanation.

@GodSpeed63 [quote]This would be true in that the people who wrote those books had very little, if that, understanding of science.[/quote]

And you do?

But let's forget those books for the moment and look at just one idea; where in the bible does it describe a heliocentric system? If it doesn't, does that mean that all the astronomers and astrophysicists are wrong and that everything does, in fact, revolve around the earth?

Two straight question, it should be easy for someone strong in faith to answer.

@LordShadowfire I have no doubt that he will fail to answer my questions in any reasonable way. I would also be surprised if he responded to them at all.

But, you never know, he may surprise me.

@Bushranger I am expecting the same.

@LordShadowfire It's a common creationist tactic. Similar to the apocryphal accounts of ostriches sticking their heads in the sand when in danger.

@Bushranger I'm a 9-year veteran of the R&S section on Yahoo. I know their tricks.

@LordShadowfire I respect your determination and patience.

@Bushranger [quote]And you do? [/quote]

Enough to know true science from pseudo science.

@GodSpeed63

This would be true in that the people who wrote those books had very little, if that, understanding of science.



You are in a position judge content of science texts?

😂😂

@SW-User [quote]You are in a position judge content of science texts?[/quote]

Without the Spirit of God, who is the righteous judge, I wouldn't be able to make a valid judgement on those science text.

@GodSpeed63

Without the Spirit of God, who is the righteous judge, I wouldn't be able to make a valid judgement on those science text.

Righteousness has nothing to do with scientific method.

Were you able to find the word hydrogen in the Bible yet?

Your book is silent on Natural science...

@SW-User Ask @GodSpeed63 if bats are birds.

@LordShadowfire 😂... has this come up before?

@SW-User No, but the Bible mentions bats. Guess what it says?

@LordShadowfire 🤣...i got this

@LordShadowfire Well he answered at least one question, but totally ignored the other one. You do have to give him credit for being consistent.

@GodSpeed63 Chemistry and physics are standard sciences. Calling them pseudo-science just demonstrates your ignorance of the subjects.

@GodSpeed63 [quote]Without the Spirit of God, who is the righteous judge, I wouldn't be able to make a valid judgement on those science text.[/quote]
So you can't make a valid judgment.

@LordShadowfire [quote]So you can't make a valid judgment.[/quote]

I just did.

@GodSpeed63 No. All you did was dismiss pretty much every field of science.

He has nothing other than the same old lines. He can’t refute anything on his own.@LordShadowfire

@LordShadowfire [quote]All you did was dismiss pretty much every field of science.[/quote]

All I did was dismiss your pseudo science, not true science.