{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
12/30/2014 6:53:59 AM
17
If you can tell me how carbon dating and evolution goes against creationism, I will be very impressed.
English
-
Show me any evidence to back up creationism first. Science doesn't work in abstract disproofs.
-
Proof that God exists. Well that's one of the biggest problems ever. Look up Pascal's wager. It proves that people who believe in God are more logical than atheists.
-
Pascal's wager does not show that the religious are more logical than atheists. It's the same thing as me saying "you should prepare for Godzilla to attack the United States, just in case he might exist." And then distinguishing myself as the more logical of the party.
-
How does science explain bodies of saints not decaying? How does science explain the countless instances where the "bread" and "wine" under a microscope actually changed from bread to body and wine to blood in both accidents and substinence? How does science explain Out Lady of Fatima where 70,000 people were witnesses to a miracle in the early 1900's?
-
The early examples of this "evidence" you display are described as "quasi-Aristotelean science". Aristotle was wrong about nearly every scientific prediction he made. Furthermore, the sightings of Our Lady of Fatima is compelling, but were reported in stark equivalence to aliens and Sasquatch. The evidence gathered (eyewitness) holds very little scientific weight, and can be dismissed rather quickly unless verified by multiple sources simultaneously (which did not occur in reference to the multitude of people who reported sightings).
-
When did I use any of Aristotles "predictions"? I was merely using an arrow of Aristotles quiver. Fatima not having too much evidence eh? Go ask 70,000 people and all their grandchildren. Photos were taken of their reactions. I would also like to bring up Out Lady of Guadalupe. The linen shirt that was the miracle (look it up) has lasted hundreds of years and is dyed of an unknown material
-
Your evidence of the "bread and wine" turning into "flesh and blood" was recorded and justified using Aristotlean science. Our Lady of Fatima is equivalent (once again) to alien life. Also, isn't it convenient that there are photos of the reactions of people rather than the actual event? The "incorruptibility" of these corpses are baffling to scientists, but it does not justify creationist philosophies.
-
If I said that the bread and wine turning into body and blood is justified by aristolean science then I was wrong. I mean to clarify that through aristolean science we can understand better the change of body and blood. Yes I do think it is very convenient that all the photos are of the people and not the miracle itself. I wondered why myself. I personally don't know why they didn't get a picture of the miracle. My theory is that all the photographers were so awe-struck that they didn't take pictures. But that's just me.
-
The problem with Aristotlean science is that it is more of a proto-science, in that the scientific method was not a primary tenet of the process.
-
-
Aristotle was wrong about a lot. He made the system of substance ( what is there)and accidents ( what it looks like). This system helps us understand the change. The substance changes but the accidents do not.
-
Also the non corrupting corpses aren't regular people are they? They are SAINTS in the church. Still think that's coincidence?
-
Where are your citations for these incidences?
-
Look em up
-
Wait...you actually believe that stuff? Even the pope said its bullshit...
-
Why take the chance?
-
Also you didn't answer my question. You made up a question that you thought could stump me but in turn you clearly avoided my question.
