ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

[_Hoops]

He won't give you specifics. I noticed he dodges this quite a bit and just says you are ignorant of what the Bible actually says, but won't back up what that is. I just ignore those who won't engage in honest dialog.

You ignore yourself? Wow! You are talented.

[_Hoops]

This statement shows who really is the simple minded. You just make things up without thinking about all the processes you would need to have this happen. It is not a surprise coming from those who believe in a literal global flood. I gave this up as a teenager due to actually thinking about all the evidence against such an event.

Ah, the old I'm smarter than you argument. That always works around here because if you tow the party line no one will call you on it.

[_Milesius]

DrW:

Since electromagnetic fields can simulate the pain of one's skin being severely burned, are you willing to infer from this that nobody ever really has their skin severely burned?

Of course not. The physical evidence for burned skin is readily seen in hospitals around the country every day.

What I am saying is that electromagnetic field stimulation can give rise to prerceptions of things (heat, light, sound, the holy spirit, supernatural beings, etc.) that are not really there.

Before people decide to base their entire decision making process and worldview on such perceptions, it might be a good idea to look for some confirming physical evidence.

In religion, folks claim truth and knowledge based on their perceptions, and that is why there are so many conflicting religions in the world, and why real truth or belief based on reality is seldmon, if ever, found among their teachings.

Pehr Granqvist and his team debunked Persinger's results several years ago. I am inclined to believe the latter is a modern day glass-looker.

[_Milesius]

Franktalk and Hoops,

Just to show that arrogant scientistic dogmatists do have a sense of humor (sort of, anyway), here is an image of the shortest (and quite possibly one of the best) abstracts ever seen on a scientific paper:



Thought you would like this. (Yes, it is for real.)

LOL

[_Themis]

You ignore yourself? Wow! You are talented.

This is about all you bring to the discussion. You aviod giving specific in order to aviod the hard questions it will bring up.

Ah, the old I'm smarter than you argument. That always works around here because if you tow the party line no one will call you on it.

It was franktalk who used it first, but in reality it showed who was really more simple minded on these issues. He just makes things up without thinking about how they would work. There is a reason many if not most christians no longer believe in a literal global flood or young earth.

[_DrW]

Pehr Granqvist and his team debunked Persinger's results several years ago. I am inclined to believe the latter is a modern day glass-looker.

Milesius,

If you are arguing from the point of a religionist or faithful members of the LDS Church, then the findings you cite make things even worse for your case. They suggest that these perceptions of a divine or supernatural presence can be induced by mere suggestion followed by some sham treatment.

This is exactly what religion is, strong suggestion (preaching) followed by a ritual treatment or a sham treatment (there is really no distinction when it comes to religion).

Can't believe that someone who thought about this for a few minutes wouldn't see the implications for religion.

Then again, perhaps you did see the implications and are not arguing as a religionist, I don't know.

[_Hoops]

There is a reason many if not most christians no longer believe in a literal global flood or young earth.

It's been my experience here that not many are really interested in what The Bible actually tells us. They would rather appeal some simplified version that is easily refuted. In other words, they knock down an argument that no one is making. Steel's opening post shows he doesn't really know what The Bible says about Genesis. I'm not saying I'm an expert, cuz I'm not.

[_SteelHead]

Hoops, there isn't a supposition among those I posted that is not common to the young Earth , creationist crowd. And you supposing that I do not know the Bible is also in error. I know it well enough that the church used to pay me to teach it to your kids.

[_Themis]

It's been my experience here that not many are really interested in what The Bible actually tells us.

This suggest that you have a better idea of what the Bible is actually saying, yet when asked you don't actually say what you think it is saying, or how others are wrong. Simply saying one is wrong is meaningless unless you actually show how they are wrong. Start doing that and you may get some credibility back.

They would rather appeal some simplified version that is easily refuted.

Yet you never do refute anything.

In other words, they knock down an argument that no one is making.

As far as this thread is concerned they have knocked down some of the arguments literalistic leaning people make, and yes they do believe the Bible says the earth was created in 6 days less then 10,00 years ago. If you don't think it does, then you are not really a literalist in this area.

Steel's opening post shows he doesn't really know what The Bible says about Genesis. I'm not saying I'm an expert, cuz I'm not.

Clearly you are not an expert, and neither am I, but you never showed that steelhead's understanding was incorrect. You would have more credibility if you would engage with sources and such instead of dodging and just making simple assertions.

[_Hoops]

Hoops, there isn't a supposition among those I posted that is not common to the young Earth , creationist crowd. And you supposing that I do not know the Bible is also in error. I know it well enough that the church used to pay me to teach it to your kids.

don't think so. But I'll point out your errors for you. Then it's up to you.