Proof that creation is wrong?

How is it 'crazy'?

I could make the argument that the Platypus is the default, but the duck is weird in that it's a bird that borrowed the Platypus' bill, and a beaver is a weird rodent with a Platypus' tail.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I believe in the passive Christ, and LOVE the God.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've never heard that before, but makes complete sense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Love is in the air.

 

Do theists question anything?
They have their book which holds all the answers to all the questions they never ask.
Perhaps if they asked questions the one they would find difficulty in providing an answer would be " Why did our loving god create so many things to harm and kill us?"
Alex

 

I do. Belief is not faith.

So what if it is unique?

 

So you believe in science.

 

The cool thing about science is it does not require belief. Ice will melt when you warm it above 32F whether you believe in melting or not. The climate will continue to warm as we add CO2 even if you don't believe in climate change.

 

Further, anything you doubt, you are free to (in fact, encouraged to) go and check out for yourself, and gather your own evidence. Any third party can verify - and refute - a theory.

IOW, comparison between the science and faith is faulty.

 

Which is only to say that I don't believe things until there is sufficient evidence to do so. How can you be sure of any knowledge if there is no or only poor evidence that it is true?

 

Ah, a fan of single definitions for words.

 

I like this.
There should be a new logical fallacy for insistence of single definitions. Jan would win.

It should also include contextless definitions, such as resorting to a common dictionary to constrain the definition of what is really a scientifically well-defined term.

 

My cousins try to control my speech so that they can limit the conversation. I offer to help them pick up their teeth.

 

So when you buy a new toothpaste, called cool mint say, and it ruins your teeth. Who do you blame?

 

You can't be sure of any knowledge full stop.

 

I've had this conversation, in this thread I think.

 

Not full stop.
'You can't be sure of any knowledge' is a philosophical problem, not a scientific problem.

In science, there is the matter of a preponderance of evidence. Sufficient evidence allows us to move forward with a working theory until/unless such time as sufficient evidence is complied against it.

 

No, it is a full stop. The difference between science and religion(monotheism) is that science evolves constantly which gives rise to a better understanding of pain killers for example, religion rarely evolves.

 

Which is why it's not a full stop.
Not being sure of any knowledge is a strength of science, not a weakness.

 

What was your question?

"You can't be sure of any knowledge full stop." - Me