It seems to me that science that is theory is no differnent than the part of Christianity that is just theory, they are same, just theories yet science seems to have quite a bit more believers.
Darwiniacs need to address that evolution and Christianity are similar in one way......they both require a leap of faith to believe. For Christians, faith is required. But faith is not how "scientific" theories are supposed to be advanced.
Scientific theories are attempted to be proven - sometimes successfully, sometimes not fully. Christianity is a theory, but no attempt to prove it has ever yielded any evidence.
the only difference is in the distance of the leap of faith. one is a leap that can be made by any person with a 2nd grade education, and the other cant be made by any rational person.
the question is very simple. if Christ did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is false. I don't know what the FBI and CIA references are about..
It appeared SDMan was arguing only that Christianity existed, not that it was false, which seems completely useless & futile to me.
Scientific theory and religious theory are NOT the same. Faith does not require proof--Science demands it. How many times in how many threads must I point out that evolution is a proved theory! Creationists simply do not understand what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is NOT a wild-ass guess. Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they often draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean. In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true. When creationists say that evolution is an unproven theory, what they are trying to say is that evolution is a hypothesis, which, in science, is an educated guess based upon observation. But evolution has progressed far beyond Darwin's original hypothesis. An overwhelming body of evidence exists that support and prove evolutionary concepts. No scientific evidence supports intelligent design. None. I have no problem with creationism, intelligent design or any other creation legends being taught in schools, but they belong in the social studies class along with Greek, Roman, Norse, and American Indian mythology. They simply are not science. Period.
Uhhh . . . Deek, none of your listed "facts" are backed up with historical or archaeological evidence. They are simply an analysis of biblical passages.
:lol: :lol: Deek, this snippet refutes itself! Only when lunacy is declared to be a form of intellect! This is circular logic at its finest. First of all, who determines what facts are not in a "sources" favor? The author only refers to these sources, he doesn't specifically cite them and point out any evidence. An allegation itself is not evidence. And obviously, even if a hostile source accepts "a fact not in its favor", it in no way makes an allegation genuine--merely accepted.
