/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6391632
For believing in God?
>>6391637
I'm glad to see you have enjoyed my post.
>>6391638
>The devil is clearly made up.
I'm not sure you are reading the same bible as me.
>This is why science is so great
Because it has been wrong in the past?
I am not trying to say that it was wrong before so it is wrong now.
However I fail to see how previous errors make something great.
>the Bible is set in stone and never changes,
Agreed
> even in the face of overwhelming evidence and contradictions
[citation needed] Science does not disprove God.
Do not attempt to apply your interpretations of the evidence to your interpretations of the bible and count that as error.
This is known as conformation bias.
>>6391640
I know you wont believe me, but I am completely serious. I believe in God.
>>6391641
>>6391645
My point was that not all "Christians" are ignorant as argued in the post I was replying to>>6391585
Perhaps a different approach. http://mwm.us.mensa.org/faq/people.html
49% Christian, 3% Unitarian, 9% Jewish, 7% agnostic, 3.6% atheist, 9% no religion.
>>6391713
I see your point, but I still find it to be lacking.
>>6391793
I got the notion from the bible.
Since when did Christianity give up the notion of a devil?
>>6391814
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I contend the possibility for God's existence is 100%. i.e. He is definitely real.
>God's existence is as likely as the existence of dragons or any other mythical being that we don't have evidence existed.
The word Dragon was used to describe the large reptiles. i.e. Dinosaurs. Do you deny that dinosaurs have lived. also (pic related)
>>6392212
I realize that my posts might make it seem that I am a troll.
I can only state that I am sincere. I know no way to prove it to you. Sorry

Well I think that was all who had replied to me. I shall have to go and read the thread.

I will read any replies I receive, but I might not reply again.

>>6368829
>That the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.
That is not a fact. It is your interpretation of the evidence.
Your statement is an observation.

>continental shifting plates, mountain/rock formation
Explained by the account of a worldwide flood.

In my opinion the age of the earth is irrelevant to the belief in God.
The proposed laws of information seem to demand a Creator.
Besides that I find biology more interesting than geology.
I have seen some interesting rocks though. (pic related)

Feel free to believe what ever you like about the age of the Earth.
If that is your debate you will have to debate it with someone else.
I am here only to talk about http://creation.com/laws-of-information-1

I find no fault with the logic presented in the linked article.
It is my opinion that the laws are valid.
If you would have me believe otherwise you should demonstrate an error.
If you do not wish to discuss this topic, we have nothing to talk about.

>>6341411
>I admire people like Ham and Hovind they are truly a inspiration

I agree, Kent Hovind is the reason I believe in the young earth creation account.
The guy always has evidence to back his theories, and he is an excellent teacher.

Ken said in the debate that "we have the same evidence" I agree with that. Evolutionist sees dinosaur fossils and creates a theory, and assumes this is correct. So they dismiss any other theories, and ignore evidence that is in opposition to their theory. (pic related)

If anyone is interested in the creation account of dinosaurs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsQIF7Yh3hI

>>6342810
How would dinosaurs disprove creation?
Job 40:15-19

15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.