LittleNipper wrote:If that is the case, science has been unable to provide the exact age of the earth.
As exact as the measuring device allows. Error bars are a reality of all measurement. Just because there are error bars when you hang a painting on your wall does not mean it isn't hanging 5 ft off the floor. Well is it exactly 5ft or is it 5ft and an angstrom? Well if you can't answer that then it must be reasonable to assert that it is really only an inch above the floor. Does that logic fail sound familiar?
Science has been unable to demonstrate how biological life can be created.
Scientific method has been unable to prove that there is no GOD.
Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).
Scientific research has not with absolute assurance proven that there was never a World Wide Flood.
Yes it has. The fact that there are creationists that disagree with this is no more relevant than the fact that there are flat earthers who disagree with the fact that the earth is a spheroid.
Science investigation has never absolutely shown that all living creatures originated from one common ancestor.
Yes it has to an exponent of certainty now in the thousands. Again the fact that there are creationists that disagree with this is no more relevant than the fact that there are flat earthers who disagree with the fact that the earth is a spheroid.
Without absolute proof that can be replicated, scientific fact is not an honest tool for undermining faith --- in fact, it become faith to those who selectively study science for determining other probabilities aside from God.
Science does not deal in proof. But it does deal with evidence and that which can be replicated. Inference is allowed as well though you have motivation to vote that out of science. Science pays no mind to faith. And finding other probabilities aside from God is no more a motivation behind the scientific enterprise than finding other probabilities aside from Voodoo, Odin or the deities of the Aboriginal Australians.
Your faith is not special so stop with your special pleading.
"Reasonable" minds doesn't indicate truth or fact. Reasonable minds indicates rationalization. You rationalization of the data is in error due to your mindset and what you determined yourself to represent as "reasonable".
LittleNipper, Feel free to elaborate where Szostak has made an error in any of his published papers. Or point out where the data supports creationism over abiogenesis. If you cannot do so maybe you are rationalizing when you ignore his work.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
spotlight wrote:LittleNipper, Feel free to elaborate where Szostak has made an error in any of his published papers. Or point out where the data supports creationism over abiogenesis. If you cannot do so maybe you are rationalizing when you ignore his work.
Nipper doesn't need books. He has God.
Does that mean he belongs to one of those clubs where the leaders wear funny hats or suits and nobody can understand what they're saying? I hear they're very important.
spotlight wrote:LittleNipper, Feel free to elaborate where Szostak has made an error in any of his published papers. Or point out where the data supports creationism over abiogenesis. If you cannot do so maybe you are rationalizing when you ignore his work.
Nipper doesn't need books. He has God.
Does that mean he belongs to one of those clubs where the leaders wear funny hats or suits and nobody can understand what they're saying? I hear they're very important.
I don't have a problem with God. Just what some mortals claim he said.
Maksutov wrote: Nipper doesn't need books. He has God.
Does that mean he belongs to one of those clubs where the leaders wear funny hats or suits and nobody can understand what they're saying? I hear they're very important.
I don't have a problem with God. Just what some mortals claim he said.
You're not supposed to see them. You're just supposed to concentrate on the God part. The people are all green screen.
Can you think of anything that has been more blatantly abused or used to abuse than religion? I can't!
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
In the LDS faith we are supposed to be able to see them. However most won't in this life. The wizard never did give the Tin Man anything he didn't already have.
The CCC wrote:In the LDS faith we are supposed to be able to see them. However most won't in this life. The wizard never did give the Tin Man anything he didn't already have.
I hear they're very important.
