Changes

::::::::::::::::Not sure where to start with that.  First of all, you just hit on a key difference between science and religion.  I do not worship scientists, nor do I take what they say as fact without questioning it and deciding for myself first.  Second, I said nothing about the existence of non-existence of any god.  Third, I'm not telling mankind anything about how life was created, I am merely pointing out that PJR's own arguments can be applied against him.  Fourth, while I have no intention of trying to prove that god doesn't exist, I can assure you that any attempt to do so would fail because those who would need to be convinced would reject any evidence provided since it "goes against the bible" or whatever they like to call it.  Fifth, I doubt that anyone can prove definitely the existence of a god, which is why religions rely so much on faith.  In fact, now that you mentioned it...you say that "these very men wrote down what God did...and God told them what to write."  What real proof do you have for that, other than it says so in the bible?--[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 11:20, 2 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::::::::::Not sure where to start with that.  First of all, you just hit on a key difference between science and religion.  I do not worship scientists, nor do I take what they say as fact without questioning it and deciding for myself first.  Second, I said nothing about the existence of non-existence of any god.  Third, I'm not telling mankind anything about how life was created, I am merely pointing out that PJR's own arguments can be applied against him.  Fourth, while I have no intention of trying to prove that god doesn't exist, I can assure you that any attempt to do so would fail because those who would need to be convinced would reject any evidence provided since it "goes against the bible" or whatever they like to call it.  Fifth, I doubt that anyone can prove definitely the existence of a god, which is why religions rely so much on faith.  In fact, now that you mentioned it...you say that "these very men wrote down what God did...and God told them what to write."  What real proof do you have for that, other than it says so in the bible?--[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 11:20, 2 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::::::::::::::There's plenty of evidence out there that confirms the existence of God: in nature, in the historical record, and in the archaeological record.  You said plenty in your above posting that it is a personal choice by anyone whether to accept such evidence or reject it.  If someone says that Napoleon was a girl, no amount of evidence to the contrary will make him change his mind.  The same thing applies to you.  No amount of evidence that we can muster in support of God will cause you to change your mind about it. With all due respect, that's the sign of a closed mind.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:05, 2 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::::::::::::::There's plenty of evidence out there that confirms the existence of God: in nature, in the historical record, and in the archaeological record.  You said plenty in your above posting that it is a personal choice by anyone whether to accept such evidence or reject it.  If someone says that Napoleon was a girl, no amount of evidence to the contrary will make him change his mind.  The same thing applies to you.  No amount of evidence that we can muster in support of God will cause you to change your mind about it. With all due respect, that's the sign of a closed mind.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:05, 2 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::::Not sure why you insists so much on eyewitnesses. It is known that they are particularly reliable sources of evidence. Either way, in empirical science nothing is absolute certain. People who believe that a scientific theory is absolute certain can't be scientists. Only religion tries to give absolute certainties. You can't apply the mindset of religion to science. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:07, 1 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::::Not sure why you insists so much on eyewitnesses. It is known that they are particularly reliable sources of evidence. Either way, in empirical science nothing is absolute certain. People who believe that a scientific theory is absolute certain can't be scientists. Only religion tries to give absolute certainties. You can't apply the mindset of religion to science. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:07, 1 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::::: In one sense, eyewitnesses are all that you have.  Even current scientific research of, for example, chemicals, is eyewitnesses (the scientists) reporting what they have seen (through the microscope).  For historical events, such as events in ancient Rome, eyewitnesses are virtually all we have to go on (or later accounts based on earlier accounts going back to the original witnesses; but even there the closer the accounts are to the original, the more accurate they are generally considered to be).  Archaeologists can glean some information from stone artifacts, pottery fragments, etc., but the best source of information is written documents, i.e. written accounts by eyewitnesses or based ultimately on eyewitness accounts.

::::::::::: In one sense, eyewitnesses are all that you have.  Even current scientific research of, for example, chemicals, is eyewitnesses (the scientists) reporting what they have seen (through the microscope).  For historical events, such as events in ancient Rome, eyewitnesses are virtually all we have to go on (or later accounts based on earlier accounts going back to the original witnesses; but even there the closer the accounts are to the original, the more accurate they are generally considered to be).  Archaeologists can glean some information from stone artifacts, pottery fragments, etc., but the best source of information is written documents, i.e. written accounts by eyewitnesses or based ultimately on eyewitness accounts.