I'm an agnostic scientist. You have zero proof and neither do I. I just know there is zero evidence of an intelligent designer. There is zero evidence of an Adam and Eve. We didn't have a world wide flood with an ark with animal 2x2. So Bull you can cut the snark. I don't know how we were created. Check that I know how we descended I'm not sure about the Big Bang either.

(05-17-2015 05:11 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'm an agnostic scientist. You have zero proof and neither do I. I just know there is zero evidence of an intelligent designer. There is zero evidence of an Adam and Eve. We didn't have a world wide flood with an ark with animal 2x2. So Bull you can cut the snark. I don't know how we were created. Check that I know how we descended I'm not sure about the Big Bang either.

Those items you list still hit the middle of existence, and do not deal with creation itself. None of that is actually relevant to the existence of God. It only gets in the way and muddies the water.

The reconciliation of creation that I speak about cuts through all of the noise, and focuses on the reality of our existence. We were:

1) Created by God

2) Originated from material that has always been in existence

3) Originated from material that was able to create itself out of nothing

We exist, therefore one of the above occurred. As an agnostic, it's ok to say you dont have proof of any of these. It is, however, unscientific to say God doesnt exist because you dont have proof that He does. One of these 3 items happened. The fact that there is no proof for any of them does not change the fact that one of them occurred.

Things that happen after the creation of the physical universe does not prove or disprove anything about creation itself. Whether or not amino acids or DNA can be formed in an early Earth environment mixed with lightning does not prove or disprove any of the above three items.

Thats why the focus is only on these three items. One of them occurred. Everything else is just noise that is used to deflect attention away. But, at the end of the day, what one has to reconcile in their mind is that one of the three items above actually occurred.

(05-16-2015 08:26 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Gills evolved into the aorta Hambone. Other than that. Decent discussion.

Fair enough and thank you... I fully admitted to not being an expert in this specific area...

(05-16-2015 08:31 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Intelligent Design is an end around. People are trying to make a square fit into a round hole. No one looking at the system as a whole would say it was by intelligent design. We had a thread on this the other month.


It's a solution trying to find a problem. It's backwards.

If I understand you, I'm not sure I agree... What you say only seems true if you insist on believing that God intended to create a 'finished' product in some way. Think of how you design your home or yard or fish tank or anything else... If you ever got to the point where it was LITERALLY finished, you'd probably want to move or tear it out and start again.. Part of the fun of things is to constantly improve them... to see them grow and to 'play' with them.

I think the challenge comes in when people try and 'understand' God, putting Him in our terms, or using metaphors in our terms that really aren't applicable in His. To me, there is an inherent flaw in the belief in a literal bible with the idea that 'we can't truly know' God, which is also in the bible.

(05-17-2015 10:02 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I don't understand being an atheist. I don't understand being a theist. We have zero proof on either end. What bewilders me is the willful blind eye people take when they create this intelligent designer. What is your working theory.

We can test natural selection. We see daily evidence of this. Drug resistant bacteria.

What is your working theory? Why do you have such a need. There is no credibility or reason in Intelligent Design. None.

I don't understand the question. It seems obvious that man seeks to play God every day... to control and master the environment... to 'master' nature and the beasts and even to create our own nature and beasts and have since the beginning of time. Why wouldn't God want to do the same? We are his 'fish tank'. Maybe he simply woke up one day and said, I want a fish tank.... or cold fusion or a glow in the dark cat. Obviously I'm being a bit silly... but there are examples of intelligent design all over our earth... design by man.

I certainly think it possible that we are God's pet project, but I think the more likely scenario is that He has multiple projects all going on at the same time... each blithely unaware of the other... and finally, that because we don't have the perspective He has, that things that we wonder 'so why did he do this' are more than likely things that he just didn't think mattered.

I'm not sure I understand the question, so I'm not sure I addressed you at all. It wasn't intentional.

has anyone ever died and been revived and said they went to hell?

(05-17-2015 10:02 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I don't understand being an atheist. I don't understand being a theist. We have zero proof on either end. What bewilders me is the willful blind eye people take when they create this intelligent designer. What is your working theory.

We can test natural selection. We see daily evidence of this. Drug resistant bacteria.

What is your working theory? Why do you have such a need. There is no credibility or reason in Intelligent Design. None.

Mach, we are doing intelligent design today in hundreds of labs around the world. So we know it can be done.

As for the evidence of it being done in the past, we have none other than the mutations themselves. We also don't know who built the Pyramids or Stonehenge. We don't know the origins of many domesticated dog breeds and that occurred in the last 2000 years. We have to admit there is much more of human history that we know nothing about than the bit that we do know.

Simply because we have no record of genetic engineering during our history does not preclude that it may have happened. At some point you will be forced to admit that any mutation nature might produce could also have been done via genetic engineering. Then the real science will start as we look at which of the two things are more likely responsible for the key mutations in our history. That will be the real science. All this other stuff is simply theorizing and blind dogmatic belief.

(05-18-2015 12:15 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 10:02 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I don't understand being an atheist. I don't understand being a theist. We have zero proof on either end. What bewilders me is the willful blind eye people take when they create this intelligent designer. What is your working theory.

We can test natural selection. We see daily evidence of this. Drug resistant bacteria.

What is your working theory? Why do you have such a need. There is no credibility or reason in Intelligent Design. None.

Mach, we are doing intelligent design today in hundreds of labs around the world. So we know it can be done.

As for the evidence of it being done in the past, we have none other than the mutations themselves. We also don't know who built the Pyramids or Stonehenge. We don't know the origins of many domesticated dog breeds and that occurred in the last 2000 years. We have to admit there is much more of human history that we know nothing about than the bit that we do know.

Simply because we have no record of genetic engineering during our history does not preclude that it may have happened. At some point you will be forced to admit that any mutation nature might produce could also have been done via genetic engineering. Then the real science will start as we look at which of the two things are more likely responsible for the key mutations in our history. That will be the real science. All this other stuff is simply theorizing and blind dogmatic belief.

I don't think anyone is saying that we can't use genetic engineering to modify existing organisms, or even create new species if humans know enough about DNA to do so. It's the claim that Yahweh himself was the one that intelligently designed earth and all it's inhabitants that is the issue. Because by your logic, it's just as likely that ancient aliens from a distant galaxy genetically engineered all of us into existence. How do you know that it didn't happen that way, and the bible is nothing more than a collection of stories created to explain unknown phenomena?

Here's the rub. We can observe the theory of evolution through the fossil record and much more recently thru DNA analysis of life. We've been able to sequence the DNA of the Neanderthals and show that they were a distinct species from homo sapiens AND that the probability is very high that Neanderthal DNA was added to the home sapiens genetic pool. We even know who built the pyramids in Egypt...the Egyptians did it. Also, it's reasonable to assume that the peoples living in England thousands of years ago built Stonehenge. I'm not sure where you are trying to go with this aside from claiming that our historical record is incomplete and that it's possible that other people besides Egyptians and the natives of Britain built the structures. In particular to the pyramids, it's highly curious because we know that they fit prominently into the pharos lives and their beliefs in the afterlife.

We have tons of evidence that shows that evolution followed the path that it did. Natural selection is not random chance, and that all it means is that genes that are best suited for a specific habitat will be passed on while genes unfavorable to an existing habitat will die out (or be suppressed). Mutations observed in the DNA of many species bear this out. We actually have 2 distinct records that detail how creation unfolded in the Judeo-Christian texts: Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2. Both of these records are contradictory, both accounts talk of 6 days for creating everything in the world and both state that evolution did not happen because the species were created in their present forms.

One thing I do observe about apologetics is that the most effective ones are the ones who have the ability to cloud the notion of God into obscurity. The more doubt that can be sewn, the stronger the apologetic argument. The more facts you add to it, the weaker the apologetics become. The most intelligent Christians out there are the ones who think much of the bible is allegory, and their apologetics can be quite seductive. The goofy asses who run the Creation Institute and those who take a literal take on the bible are the ones who look the most ridiculous in their apologetics attempts.

(05-17-2015 06:18 PM)shere khan Wrote:  has anyone ever died and been revived and said they went to hell?

Yes.

(05-18-2015 08:49 AM)smudge12 Wrote:  What about all the people who clinically die, revive, but never recall anything (aka. the vast majority of cases)?

i'm reminded of this.

Jesus is Lord.

(05-15-2015 09:12 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  that he's either lying for some sort of profit, or have some medical reasoning for it.

Sounds about right.

(05-17-2015 06:18 PM)shere khan Wrote:  has anyone ever died and been revived and said they went to hell?

Ive heard stories at church of those that did and repented and became a Christian afterwards.

(05-18-2015 08:49 AM)smudge12 Wrote:  What about all the people who clinically die, revive, but never recall anything (aka. the vast majority of cases)?

Purgatory

(05-18-2015 11:05 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 09:12 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  that he's either lying for some sort of profit, or have some medical reasoning for it.

Sounds about right.

Yup.

(05-18-2015 06:25 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I don't think anyone is saying that we can't use genetic engineering to modify existing organisms, or even create new species if humans know enough about DNA to do so. It's the claim that Yahweh himself was the one that intelligently designed earth and all it's inhabitants that is the issue. Because by your logic, it's just as likely that ancient aliens from a distant galaxy genetically engineered all of us into existence. How do you know that it didn't happen that way, and the bible is nothing more than a collection of stories created to explain unknown phenomena?

We don't. That's why it's called 'faith'. However, since we don't know... calling it 'Science' is equally involved in 'faith'. That's essentially what an unproven theory is... and while you can certainly prove that things evolve and adapt to things like a changing environment, that doesn't exclude either of the theories above (God or Aliens). I say this because some seem to imply that because we can demonstrate evolution that it somehow rules out 'design', and that isn't true. Both things are happening simultaneously today.

Quote:Here's the rub. We can observe the theory of evolution through the fossil record and much more recently thru DNA analysis of life. We've been able to sequence the DNA of the Neanderthals and show that they were a distinct species from homo sapiens AND that the probability is very high that Neanderthal DNA was added to the home sapiens genetic pool. We even know who built the pyramids in Egypt...the Egyptians did it. Also, it's reasonable to assume that the peoples living in England thousands of years ago built Stonehenge. I'm not sure where you are trying to go with this aside from claiming that our historical record is incomplete and that it's possible that other people besides Egyptians and the natives of Britain built the structures. In particular to the pyramids, it's highly curious because we know that they fit prominently into the pharos lives and their beliefs in the afterlife.

There are all sorts of things we don't know about these things... like how they built something in 20 years with hand tools and string that it takes us twice as long with excavators and lasers to do today to the same degree of accuracy... or how they lifted the 10 ton stones at Stonehenge (the capstones)... or how they got them so smooth with hand tools... or more importantly, why. I think I read that the great pyramid of Giza, if started the day Khufu was born and finished the day he died, would have required placing a 2-50 ton stone per minute 24 hours a day 365 days. The 144,000 15 ton outer casing stones are polished to an accuracy of 1/100th of an inch. The amount of precision required would be impressive today... much less 4500 years ago. Now that certainly COULD have happened, and probably did... but we still don't know how.

Quote:We have tons of evidence that shows that evolution followed the path that it did. Natural selection is not random chance, and that all it means is that genes that are best suited for a specific habitat will be passed on while genes unfavorable to an existing habitat will die out (or be suppressed). Mutations observed in the DNA of many species bear this out. We actually have 2 distinct records that detail how creation unfolded in the Judeo-Christian texts: Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2. Both of these records are contradictory, both accounts talk of 6 days for creating everything in the world and both state that evolution did not happen because the species were created in their present forms.

That's not what the bible says except to a very small number of 'literalists'.

Quote:One thing I do observe about apologetics is that the most effective ones are the ones who have the ability to cloud the notion of God into obscurity. The more doubt that can be sewn, the stronger the apologetic argument. The more facts you add to it, the weaker the apologetics become. The most intelligent Christians out there are the ones who think much of the bible is allegory, and their apologetics can be quite seductive. The goofy asses who run the Creation Institute and those who take a literal take on the bible are the ones who look the most ridiculous in their apologetics attempts.

I find this sort of argument to be unnecessarily rude and completely misses the point, and tells another lie in its place.

The fact remains that nothing in science RULES OUT intelligent design... and just as in the idea that SOMEONE wins the lottery, not to mention the perhaps millions of 'unlikely events' that you must admit HAVE taken place to result in 'where we are' through evolution, just because you find something to be highly unlikely doesn't mean it didn't happen. What is the difference between those apologetic attempts and any other 'scientific' theory of how the great Pyramids were built to such accuracy and global alignment, and how they did things like bored core 7? Something we were only recently able to do ourselves (the last 100 years or so).

The difference is that 'faith' does not require PROOF, by definition. Science does. Without proof, science is merely theory or in other words, faith. If you don't believe in the 'theory' of a creator, no problem. You don't have to. I may think you're wrong, but I can't prove it. If you ask me to prove it, I can't... but I will certainly tell you why I do. Similarly, you are free to present to me YOUR theory... but you can't prove it either... and all of these 'apologetic attempts' that people make to try and prove their OWN theories... like how evidence of evolution in any way eliminates the possibility of design, or how a book written 2000+ years ago and translated multiple times MUST somehow be literal, even in translation, even though so many things (like why a day on earth would be a measure of time for an omnipotent and universal creator) are exactly the same on both sides.

The fact is that God is a scientific theory... and those who 'adjust' that theory based on learning new information are no different than any other scientists who do EXACTLY the same thing.

You guys are setting the bar lower for science than for 'faith', which is completely counter-intuitive... and then trying to eliminate 'faith' merely because it can't be proved in favor of something else that can't be proved.

(05-18-2015 11:24 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 06:18 PM)shere khan Wrote:  has anyone ever died and been revived and said they went to hell?

Ive heard stories at church of those that did and repented and became a Christian afterwards.

Doh! That would do it

Quote:

(05-18-2015 06:25 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I don't think anyone is saying that we can't use genetic engineering to modify existing organisms, or even create new species if humans know enough about DNA to do so. It's the claim that Yahweh himself was the one that intelligently designed earth and all it's inhabitants that is the issue. Because by your logic, it's just as likely that ancient aliens from a distant galaxy genetically engineered all of us into existence. How do you know that it didn't happen that way, and the bible is nothing more than a collection of stories created to explain unknown phenomena?

We don't. That's why it's called 'faith'. However, since we don't know... calling it 'Science' is equally involved in 'faith'. That's essentially what an unproven theory is... and while you can certainly prove that things evolve and adapt to things like a changing environment, that doesn't exclude either of the theories above (God or Aliens). I say this because some seem to imply that because we can demonstrate evolution that it somehow rules out 'design', and that isn't true. Both things are happening simultaneously today.

Having faith in a deity is not the same as having "faith" that a scientific theory is a good explanation explaining phenomena. The scientific theories of aboigenesis is an explanation for the origins of life that is significantly less developed and accepted than evolution. To be clear, origins of life discussions are different than origins of species discussions. Evolution is NOT a theory about origins. Also, theory in scientific parlance is not the same as how laymen use the term. A scientific theory is not merely an opinion, but a reasonable explanation about something based on a slew of observations and experiments. Sure, you cannot rule out that there wasn't a designer who started this whole situation. However, as we learn more and learn more about how the world works, there comes a time where you need to apply Occam's Razor to the variety of competing ideas on what is going on. More and more phenomena in this world are shown to have natural processes that follow scientific rules.

Quote:

Quote:Here's the rub. We can observe the theory of evolution through the fossil record and much more recently thru DNA analysis of life. We've been able to sequence the DNA of the Neanderthals and show that they were a distinct species from homo sapiens AND that the probability is very high that Neanderthal DNA was added to the home sapiens genetic pool. We even know who built the pyramids in Egypt...the Egyptians did it. Also, it's reasonable to assume that the peoples living in England thousands of years ago built Stonehenge. I'm not sure where you are trying to go with this aside from claiming that our historical record is incomplete and that it's possible that other people besides Egyptians and the natives of Britain built the structures. In particular to the pyramids, it's highly curious because we know that they fit prominently into the pharos lives and their beliefs in the afterlife.

There are all sorts of things we don't know about these things... like how they built something in 20 years with hand tools and string that it takes us twice as long with excavators and lasers to do today to the same degree of accuracy... or how they lifted the 10 ton stones at Stonehenge (the capstones)... or how they got them so smooth with hand tools... or more importantly, why. I think I read that the great pyramid of Giza, if started the day Khufu was born and finished the day he died, would have required placing a 2-50 ton stone per minute 24 hours a day 365 days. The 144,000 15 ton outer casing stones are polished to an accuracy of 1/100th of an inch. The amount of precision required would be impressive today... much less 4500 years ago. Now that certainly COULD have happened, and probably did... but we still don't know how.

Just because we don't know how the ancients did what they did, it doesn't mean that they had some supernatural or extraterrestrial help. For the other poster to state "we don't know who built the pyramids" is asinine. We know who. Now did we lose knowledge of ancient know how? I'm sure we did.

Quote:

Quote:We have tons of evidence that shows that evolution followed the path that it did. Natural selection is not random chance, and that all it means is that genes that are best suited for a specific habitat will be passed on while genes unfavorable to an existing habitat will die out (or be suppressed). Mutations observed in the DNA of many species bear this out. We actually have 2 distinct records that detail how creation unfolded in the Judeo-Christian texts: Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2. Both of these records are contradictory, both accounts talk of 6 days for creating everything in the world and both state that evolution did not happen because the species were created in their present forms.

That's not what the bible says except to a very small number of 'literalists'.

No, that's exactly what the bible says. Most people realize that in order for all of it to "work", you need to interpret the meaning of the words. Because of that, you see an increasingly more splintered Christian religion today than you did over hundreds of years and over 1000 years ago. People praying for spiritual guidance and reading the bible come up with different conclusions. That's why we see Calvinism vs Arminianism, Infant Baptism vs adult only baptism vs "you don't even need to be baptized", Baptism as a necessity to cleanse original sin from the soul vs it being merely an outward sign of an inner working grace, and even the mechanisms for obtaining and keeping salvation.

Quote:

Quote:One thing I do observe about apologetics is that the most effective ones are the ones who have the ability to cloud the notion of God into obscurity. The more doubt that can be sewn, the stronger the apologetic argument. The more facts you add to it, the weaker the apologetics become. The most intelligent Christians out there are the ones who think much of the bible is allegory, and their apologetics can be quite seductive. The goofy asses who run the Creation Institute and those who take a literal take on the bible are the ones who look the most ridiculous in their apologetics attempts.

I find this sort of argument to be unnecessarily rude and completely misses the point, and tells another lie in its place.

The fact remains that nothing in science RULES OUT intelligent design... and just as in the idea that SOMEONE wins the lottery, not to mention the perhaps millions of 'unlikely events' that you must admit HAVE taken place to result in 'where we are' through evolution, just because you find something to be highly unlikely doesn't mean it didn't happen. What is the difference between those apologetic attempts and any other 'scientific' theory of how the great Pyramids were built to such accuracy and global alignment, and how they did things like bored core 7? Something we were only recently able to do ourselves (the last 100 years or so).

The difference is that 'faith' does not require PROOF, by definition. Science does. Without proof, science is merely theory or in other words, faith. If you don't believe in the 'theory' of a creator, no problem. You don't have to. I may think you're wrong, but I can't prove it. If you ask me to prove it, I can't... but I will certainly tell you why I do. Similarly, you are free to present to me YOUR theory... but you can't prove it either... and all of these 'apologetic attempts' that people make to try and prove their OWN theories... like how evidence of evolution in any way eliminates the possibility of design, or how a book written 2000+ years ago and translated multiple times MUST somehow be literal, even in translation, even though so many things (like why a day on earth would be a measure of time for an omnipotent and universal creator) are exactly the same on both sides.

The fact is that God is a scientific theory... and those who 'adjust' that theory based on learning new information are no different than any other scientists who do EXACTLY the same thing.

You guys are setting the bar lower for science than for 'faith', which is completely counter-intuitive... and then trying to eliminate 'faith' merely because it can't be proved in favor of something else that can't be proved.

[/quote]

No. The development of scientific theories are NOT the same as the "development" of religious belief systems. The former can be refined through scientific observation and experimentation. The latter, OTOH, is supposed to be revealed truths. I think it's curious how people can say with a straight face that religion needs to develop over time as man's understanding of the world around him improves. Faith is meant to be belief in a revealed truth. When homosexuality is written about in the bible as an abomination, yet a number of Christian denominations have "evolved" their understanding of Jesus's teachings to mean that homosexuality is acceptable... What does that tell you? I know the quick answer is that "Those guys got it all wrong". But when people pray to the same Holy Spirit for guidance and then draw different conclusions from reading the same bible... What does that tell us?

(05-18-2015 01:05 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Having faith in a deity is not the same as having "faith" that a scientific theory is a good explanation explaining phenomena.

Sure they are.

Quote:Just because we don't know how the ancients did what they did, it doesn't mean that they had some supernatural or extraterrestrial help. For the other poster to state "we don't know who built the pyramids" is asinine. We know who. Now did we lose knowledge of ancient know how? I'm sure we did.

So why are you assigning someone else's comments to me? It SEEMS that you would do this so that you could then argue with them, and ignore what I said.

It doesn't mean they had some supernatural or extraterrestrial help, but it also doesn't rule it out either.

Quote:No, that's exactly what the bible says.

Since the Bible isn't written in English, this is a demonstrable fabrication of the facts. It may or may not be a reasonable approximation/interpretation of what it said, but it absolutely is not exactly what it said. More significantly, unless you believe in the LITERAL bible, which very few do... it wouldn't matter if it did.

So once again, you're ignoring what I said and proceeding to dispute your own interpretation. Kinda easy to win an argument when you do this.

Quote:No. The development of scientific theories are NOT the same as the "development" of religious belief systems. The former can be refined through scientific observation and experimentation. The latter, OTOH, is supposed to be revealed truths. I think it's curious how people can say with a straight face that religion needs to develop over time as man's understanding of the world around him improves. Faith is meant to be belief in a revealed truth. When homosexuality is written about in the bible as an abomination, yet a number of Christian denominations have "evolved" their understanding of Jesus's teachings to mean that homosexuality is acceptable... What does that tell you? I know the quick answer is that "Those guys got it all wrong". But when people pray to the same Holy Spirit for guidance and then draw different conclusions from reading the same bible... What does that tell us?

Wow... you must not even realize how much you mis-state what people believe in order to then argue with your own mis-statement of those beliefs. You are stating what people want to believe He meant, and not what He actually meant.

Obviously the TRUTH of God (or not) WILL eventually be revealed... and what He REALLY meant for us to do (if He is) will also be revealed... but unfortunately, it will be hard to tell anyone still living about it. As for the rest of what you say, I'd completely disagree with your opinion.

What does it tell me? The same thing it tells me about all of the scientific theories about how the earth was flat and the center of the universe and how all of the theories and 'truths' that we KNEW through science of the day had to be changed in order to 'fit' as we learned more. I find it funny that you require that the religious rely on a 2,000 year old 'text book' and then question their attempts to adapt 'what we know' to 'what we learn', but you once again, hold NONE of those things sacred for science. Science is allowed to change it's understanding, but Religion is not?

God either exists or he doesn't. I think He does, and this possibility cannot be ruled out. I doubt that ANY religion actually has 'what He wants from us' down correctly... that is just an unreasonable expectation. You don't know EXACTLY what your spouse wants or intended, much less our founding fathers... much less God.

What does it tell us when two people read the same book and draw different conclusions? That different people have different perspectives. The old adage of 'two sides to every story' continues to hold true and that our opinions are often shaped by our preconceptions.

Once again, you're holding 'faith' up to an impossible burden that you have defined for it, and science up to a much lower burden.

As I said, I could throw darts at a board and by pure random chance select the right 'truth' about the origins of the universe... and you could engage in eons of scientific discovery and through one simple observational or calculated mistake or simply an 'unlikely event' taking place, be completely wrong. Neither even changes what 'is'... Only what we THINK is.

Oh, and as a complete but significant aside... Man getting religion wrong (not understanding) which is AT BEST what you are arguing to prove, doesn't make intelligent design impossible. Maybe Scientology is 100% correct. I doubt it, but it's certainly possible. It MIGHT make Christianity wrong or Islam or Judiasm or any other faith wrong, but that's not the same thing.

Obviously SOME of us have it wrong. Frankly, I think MOST of us have it wrong in the specifics... but the common values that they all share are probably pretty close.

No true Scotsman.

(05-15-2015 08:14 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  say that he's either lying for some sort of profit, or have some medical reasoning for it.

From the article:

"The family is hoping to raise money for Zack’s medical bills. To make a donation click here. They are also raising money by selling T-shirts."

(05-18-2015 01:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 01:05 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Having faith in a deity is not the same as having "faith" that a scientific theory is a good explanation explaining phenomena.

Sure they are.

No, it isn't. Not at all.