Prove to me that you have a soul.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, religion is a belief; that is distinct from a theory. A book is not proof, it is words. Proof is a scientific concept. The basis on which the theory of evolution- not a static concept but one that changes as we learn more- copmes from are all thinga that can be tested and repeatedly challeneged as fits the scientific method. It is an entirely diffewrent concept to a philosophical belief like religion.

i want you to show me, without words, proof of Evolution.

I have never heard, nor seen viable proof of Evolution.

Then I suggest you properly study the subject. Not without reason has it become accepted by the majority of the scentific community- though in various forms.

If it did not have evidence supporting it, scientists would not have adopted it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Then I suggest you properly study the subject. Not without reason has it become accepted by the majority of the scentific community- though in various forms.

If it did not have evidence supporting it, scientists would not have adopted it.

And if christianity had no evidence supporting it, nobody would believe it, but, lots of people believe it including some scientists. 🙂

No, that's where you are wrong.

Religion is supported by faith, not evidence. If Religion was supported by evidence, it would be part of the scientific world, not distinct from it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, that's where you are wrong.

Religion is supported by faith, not evidence. If Religion was supported by evidence, it would be part of the scientific world, not distinct from it.

The bible was made before science even existed, it says earth is spherical. the proof that it was made before science is the dead sea scrolls.

I am sure you can get into a considerable argument about the Dead Sea Scrolls.

But that the Bible existed before the scientific method (actually debatable) doesn't actually change anything, does it?

Stigmatists exhibit the wounds of Christ, thefore Jesus was real. Christ said he came to save our souls. Ergo, I have a soul

Originally posted by BobbyD
Stigmatists exhibit the wounds of Christ, thefore Jesus was real. Christ said he came to save our souls. Ergo, I have a soul

So because the bible said you have a soul, then you have one. Is that correct?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I am sure you can get into a considerable argument about the Dead Sea Scrolls.

But that the Bible existed before the scientific method (actually debatable) doesn't actually change anything, does it?

The bible says that man was made of earth, the scientific fact that we are made of the same things as earth.

The bible says god seperate the sky from the seas, H20 and O2.

The bible claims that earth was once one big island, science also agrees.

FACTS. Before science even existed, isn't it weird?

Other than your interpretations there being questionable, The Bible says lots of stuff that is complete nonsense as well. Regardless, it still doesn't change anything about either the nature or burden of proof.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Other than your interpretations there being questionable, The Bible says lots of stuff that is complete nonsense as well. Regardless, it still doesn't change anything about either the nature or burden of proof.

Nonsense that still hasn't been proven wrong.... The book that writes of them is right on some very big things, meaning, surely it wouldn't be wrong.
It's a theory, because so many other things are correct, why should it not be correct on who made the universe?

It's not a theory because its contents do not meet sicentific standards of evidence.

Plenty in the Bible has been proven wrong.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It's not a theory because its contents do not meet sicentific standards of evidence.

Plenty in the Bible has been proven wrong.

I just said 4 big things that are scientifically correct, meaning these 4 big things are true.

So, it's not been disproven, but there has been proof that what it says it true on many other accounts.

Any suggestions on the things which have been proven wrong?

World created in six days?

And meanwhile, just because you state a fact that does not make it scientific. I can say the sky is blue. That is a fact. But if I say the sky is blue because the great Dragon God decreed it to be at the dawn of the great Dragon Court Cosmos, then my statement about the sky being blue was not based on science.

I don't want to sound intrusive but I think this discussion would be better in the Creation vs Evolution thread.

It's more about the nature of proof.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
World created in six days?

And meanwhile, just because you state a fact that does not make it scientific. I can say the sky is blue. That is a fact. But if I say the sky is blue because the great Dragon God decreed it to be at the dawn of the great Dragon Court Cosmos, then my statement about the sky being blue was not based on science.

I have often pointed out (to those Christians that attack my faith because of lack of evidence) that the Bible has no evidence supporting its truth or accuracy of events in the eyes of an individual that does not believe it. Evidence that people or places exist/ed does not validate the claims the Bible makes. Any belief in the Bible is only due to faith, a hope, that it is true. Personally I believe it, and the evidences of places and peoples' existence is nice, but one must admit what one lacks, and there is a lack of evidence for any system of religious belief.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
World created in six days?

And meanwhile, just because you state a fact that does not make it scientific. I can say the sky is blue. That is a fact. But if I say the sky is blue because the great Dragon God decreed it to be at the dawn of the great Dragon Court Cosmos, then my statement about the sky being blue was not based on science.

I knew there would be a question like that, but that's because you don't believe there is a god, so then you forget what a god IS.

God, can do what he likes, for however long he wants to do it, making the world in six days is no different.

The same with the others, H20 has 02 in it, which is obviously why it says he seperated the sky from the waters. He doesn't need to do it our way, by heating it up until it boils 🙄 .

He doesn't need to make people our way either, and since we don't even know how to, let's not question his ability 🙂

and to mention how the islands split is irrelivant to the point the bible is trying to bring across!

And there is nothing wrong with faith, doubly so in a Religion area. It just should not be confused with proof.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And there is nothing wrong with faith, doubly so in a Religion area. It just should not be confused with proof.

Very much agreed. Proof is something religious fanatics misunderstand, and lay people tend to assume.