[ohplease]

All the data humans have collected shows no evidence of miracles or gods or devils or angels, etc.

That is patently false, but par for the course for your brand of "science".

You can make the case for that if you like, I doubt you will do so (you could start by pointing to a single peer reviewed science paper that claims such evidence) and my "brand" of science is science as practiced by you know actual scientists. 

[Pete Svarrior]

You can make the case for that if you like, I doubt you will do so and my "brand" of science is science as practiced by you know actual scientists.

To support your claim, please name 3 scientists who follow the approach of "just state any old shit and claim that 'all the data shows it' without providing any evidence".

[ohplease]

You can make the case for that if you like, I doubt you will do so and my "brand" of science is science as practiced by you know actual scientists.

To support your claim, please name 3 scientists who follow the approach of "just state any old shit and claim that 'all the data shows it' without providing any evidence".

I will just ignore your trolling from now on.

[Pete Svarrior]

Since I have not done that why would I bother?

Well, you did claim that your brand of "science" is "science as practiced by you know actual scientists". I'm glad you now realise that was incorrect. I guesss this is a special case of you using words without knowing what they mean.

[xasop]

You can make the case for that if you like

It is neither relevant to the discussion at hand, despite you doing your utmost to derail the thread with your pseudo-intellectual ramblings, nor necessary, since you have provided zero justification for your own claim.

[ohplease]

Lets just review.

All the data humans have collected shows no evidence of miracles or gods or devils or angels, etc.

That is patently false, but par for the course for your brand of "science".

I stated (and still do) that no data collected (note this is not tales of hearsay but actual collected data) shows evidence of gods or devils etc.  You say that is "patently false" so it should be trivial for you to prove me wrong by just providing a link to such evidence and analysis.  But instead you insist that I prove a negative. 

Clearly I made a mistake in thinking your post was serious.  Apologies to the rest of the board.

[xasop]

I stated (and still do) that no data collected (note this is not tales of hearsay but actual collected data)

Ah, so now you are cherry-picking which evidence qualifies as "evidence" to you. Once again, this is not how science works, nor is it what you initially claimed.

But instead you insist that I prove a negative.

I am simply suggesting that you should be able to back up claims you make, but thank you for admitting that your claim is indefensible.

[Rushy]

While fascinating to watch two university STEM memesters debate a high school student on what constitutes "science", it seems like it's a waste of time on everyone's count. If you're going to fill a thread up with this sort of stuff, could you guys at least do it in Complete Nonsense where discussions like these belong? Trying to perform the job of this lad's primary school science teacher is not conducive to discussion and I prefer not to view what will probably end up being several pages of:

1. <nonsensical claim>
2. "That's nonsense"
3. "Oh yeah? Prove it!"
4. "No, you prove it!"
5. "No! YOU prove it!"

Repeat steps 4 to 5 for the next week.

[Pondering Charles]

It's honestly very obvious that the ball earth is an intentional deception from satan to bring people away from God and the Bible. and it's obvious that the big bang model is ridiculous, so is the idea that im sitting on an earth being constantly hit by 1000 MPH wind.....oh, but ballers say we are spinning "with it"...then it wouldnt be wind at all, because there would be no relative movement!

[ohplease]

I stated (and still do) that no data collected (note this is not tales of hearsay but actual collected data)

Ah, so now you are cherry-picking which evidence qualifies as "evidence" to you. Once again, this is not how science works, nor is it what you initially claimed.

No I am not. I thought "data collected" made it clear I am talking about scientific data, not tales of tales etc.  Your statement makes it clear you DID take it that way (or else why would now science works be relevant?).   If you claim there IS such data (and then I'd expect to be numerous scientific papers about it) please point them out.  If its so "patently false" that no such data exists, why not just do me the favor or indulge me and point out this amazing data.  I'd really love to see it.

[xasop]

I thought "data collected" made it clear I am talking about scientific data, not tales of tales etc.

You are the only one who seems to think that eyewitness accounts do not constitute scientific data.

[Pondering Charles]

I thought "data collected" made it clear I am talking about scientific data, not tales of tales etc.

You are the only one who seems to think that eyewitness accounts do not constitute scientific data.

Does it ever occur to you that Satan maybe planting false data to misled you?

[ohplease]

I thought "data collected" made it clear I am talking about scientific data, not tales of tales etc.

You are the only one who seems to think that eyewitness accounts do not constitute scientific data.

It can, it all depends.  As made famous by Carl Sagan "“extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” and you still have not provided any evidence, extraordinary or otherwise.

[BillO]

You are the only one who seems to think that eyewitness accounts do not constitute scientific data.

"Eyewitness" accounts cover quite a spectrum.  Some would certainly be considered scientific data (doing an experiment and making careful observations repeated many times and averaged over time) and others not really (I saw it for about 1/4 of a second out of the very corner of my eye.  I was more concentrated on driving, but I'm sure of what it was) and still others that are just utter junk (she swears her friend's uncle's story about being told by an old guy he met fishing that he actually saw the sasquatch picking it's nose, can be taken to the bunk, er .. bank).

That last category covers the "eyewitness accounts" we find in the Bible.

[xasop]

It can, it all depends.  As made famous by Carl Sagan "“extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” and you still have not provided any evidence, extraordinary or otherwise.

I do hope not, if I'd provided any evidence that would have been an enormous failure on my part.

[Pondering Charles]

god doesnt exist, satan doesnt exist, there is no heaven

[PraiseGOD]

KISS

Judge and ye not be judged.

Our salvation is 100% by Gods GRACE !!! Faith in Christ you will receive the SPIRIT....End of story !  Eternal Life !

We're all sinners and will continue to sin, saved or not. The HOLY Spirit will direct our lives and see we repent and do works. If you don't have the SPIRIT maybe you really didn't have FAITH and thought you could pull one over on GOD?...

Ye of little FAITH !

“Judge not, that ye be not judged.”

Twist not scripture, lest you be like Satan.



24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
(John 7:24)

1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
(1 Corinthians 6:1-6)