Creation vs. Evolution

[Kylehnat]

So that's, 4,500,000,000 right? not 4,500,000,039? are you sure? You're the only source of this exact number I've ever seen. Yes I am skeptical

You've apparently never learned anything about significant figures.

Anyway, if we had the exact age of the earth up to 99.9999%, the uncertainty would still be 4,500 years.

I'll let you figure out if there is any significant difference between the numbers 4,500,004,500 and 4,499,995,500.

 

[LeadSlead#2]

Anyway, if we had the exact age of the earth up to 99.9999%, the uncertainty would still be 4,500 years..

that was EXACTLY my point, thank you, now imagine they're only 95% accurate. or, 30%

I'll let you figure out if there is any significant difference between the numbers 4,500,004,500 and 4,499,995,500.

I'm going to guess it's 10,000 years... which is great, if you missed the part where I called people arrogant, conceded, and ignorant to think they can figure out things like this, also, the fact that they've "discovered" all this in the last what? 60-70 years? or have they been guessing longer?
How do they guess? cause bones look like "A" after 100 years, and "B" after 200, so these must be, oh, say, 4.5 billion? that's great, excuse me if I'm skeptical. And this is what you rely on to believe there is no God?
Do you not understand the concept that, assuming there is a God, he's far to smart for you to ever hold a candle to? Do you also not understand that God never says the earth isn't 5 billion years old?
He does mention giant beasts, things that could easily be dinosaurs, so what could you possibly prove here, even if you had video footage of 4.5 billions years? Science still doesnt contradict God, in any form I know of.

So why are so many relying on science to prove the lack of a greater being?
I do understand how much easier life is when you have nobody to answer to, so that's a point for you, but after that, I'm drawing a blank.

Tip: tomorrow, go outside and dare God, dare him all day, nothing will happen, likely, nothing at all. However if you simply start paying attention to your "coincidences" and weird occurences, recognize some patterns, instead of writing it off as, "chance", or, "nothing" think, why did that happen?

Magic Johnson has no AIDS in his system detectable today. God? Science? likely, Science, and money, however many people get incurable diseases, everyday, and somehow some live, why? give me your science now.

 

[Small_Fryz]

science doenst disprove a god. it just helps prove that we evolved and things can form WITHOUT god having to work his magic.

 

[Touring Mars]

I'm going to guess it's 10,000 years... which is great, if you missed the part where I called people arrogant, conceded, and ignorant to think they can figure out things like this, also, the fact that they've "discovered" all this in the last what? 60-70 years? or have they been guessing longer?
How do they guess? cause bones look like "A" after 100 years, and "B" after 200, so these must be, oh, say, 4.5 billion? that's great, excuse me if I'm skeptical. And this is what you rely on to believe there is no God?
Do you not understand the concept that, assuming there is a God, he's far to smart for you to ever hold a candle to? Do you also not understand that God never says the earth isn't 5 billion years old?
He does mention giant beasts, things that could easily be dinosaurs, so what could you possibly prove here, even if you had video footage of 4.5 billions years? Science still doesnt contradict God, in any form I know of.

You can guess what ever you want, but you'll probably be wrong. Any fool can pick a number out of the air, but the evidence will probably prove you wrong. I used to think (as an infant) that the world was about 50 years old. A figure I picked out of thin air. I was wrong. How do I know I was wrong? Ample evidence proves otherwise.

To answer your question, "how do they guess?", the answer is quite simple - they don't have to 'guess' at all - however, the methods/techniques used to work out the age of the Earth are not simple, infact they can be quite complex, but to a good agreement, evidence from several sources points to an age of around 4.55 billion years.

The reason why this statement is irrelevant in the context of this thread is because creationists do clearly state that the earth is around 6000 years only. Ironically, your opinion is actually more plausible than most creationists are willing to accept. Indeed you are right to say that God never said anything about the Earth not being about 5 billion years old. Indeed He did not. But, unfortunately creationists do. I'm as willing to believe creationist claims (with no evidential support) as I am willing to believe anyone else who pulls a figure clean out of the air. Creationists argue that the figure of 6000 years is taken from a literal interpretation of the Bible. I contest that it is infact their interpretation of the Bible that is wrong, and not necessarily the Bible itself, or even less God himself.

Magic Johnson has no AIDS in his system detectable today. God? Science? likely, Science, and money, however many people get incurable diseases, everyday, and somehow some live, why? give me your science now.[/B]

Actually, the reason Magic Johnson is still alive is because he has never developed AIDS, so in a strange way, you are right - he does 'have no AIDS in his system' - but he IS still HIV positive. HIV is the virus that leads to the disease, AIDS. AIDS is (as yet) an incurable disease, and people with AIDS usually die quite quickly. But it takes many years for the HIV virus to lead to full blown AIDS. Before scientists came along and produced drugs that counteract the action of the virus, people who tested HIV positive could expect to live a couple of years before they developed AIDS, and then died. But now, thanks to modern science and medicine, as well as better treatment (both medically and generally), people with the HIV virus (like Magic Johnson) can now expect to live for much longer before they succumb to AIDS.

Your point that 'people get incurable diseases, everyday, and somehow some live' is stating the obvious - yes, they do live - for a while (the exact duration is dependent on an array of factors) - but unless a cure is found, they will eventually die. But, we have to be careful with the term 'incurable' - in common terms, 'incurable' is taken to mean 'there is currently no known cure' - this is very different from another interpretation of the word, which is 'it is not possible for this disease to be cured' - luckily for us, medicine (and science) has successfully tackled (and continues to do so) diseases that once had or currently have no known cure. Of course, the human body itself is even better at finding cures - if a cure for a disease is to be found first, it is usually found by the human body itself. But it is the job of scientists to discover the natural, physical processes by which this happened, if indeed it ever happens. By saying "Yay, it's a miracle" and leave it at that, we will never know what those natural processes are, and therefore miss a great opportunity to find a cure for the vast majority of people who do not recover spontaneously.

 

[Kylehnat]

I'm going to guess it's 10,000 years... which is great, if you missed the part where I called people arrogant, conceded, and ignorant to think they can figure out things like this, also, the fact that they've "discovered" all this in the last what? 60-70 years? or have they been guessing longer?
How do they guess? cause bones look like "A" after 100 years, and "B" after 200, so these must be, oh, say, 4.5 billion? that's great, excuse me if I'm skeptical. And this is what you rely on to believe there is no God?

You can't possibly be this ignorant.

1)They don't "look" at anything and subjectively give it an age
2)Anything that is living, or has ever been living, cannot be dated back more than 20,000 years or so with carbon-14 dating. Now before you get all flustered, realize that fossils are actually rocks and
3)Rocks can be dated back billions of years with uranium-238 tracing.

And I don't use this as the basis of my atheism. There are plenty of other reasons.

 

[Small_Fryz]

1 tree that was cut down in 1964 lived to around 5000 years!, one alive today is 4500 years old!

According to "Creationists" this is either half or 3/4 the life of the universe!!.
WHAT A LUCKY TREE

 

[Touring Mars]

1 tree that was cut down in 1964 lived to around 5000 years!, one alive today is 4500 years old!

Some of my Dad's jokes are even older than that...

Speaking of ancient life, I'd like to know how creationism explains all this (scroll down to the Table of Geological Time), since according to Young Earth theory, none of it actually happened except for the last 60% of the last era, the (current) Holocene epoch...

 

[LeadSlead#2]

You can guess what ever you want, but you'll probably be wrong. Any fool can pick a number out of the air, but the evidence will probably prove you wrong. I used to think (as an infant) that the world was about 50 years old. A figure I picked out of thin air. I was wrong. How do I know I was wrong? Ample evidence proves otherwise.

The only thing I "guessed" was about the difference between his numbers, I hope you're not saying that was wrong. it's 10,000


And as for "creastionists" believing it's about 6000 years old... I believe in Creation, but I don't know how old the earth is, and I don't believe people who say they do. while I could read on about how they eventually decided they think the earth is 5 billion years old, it will come down to, "this looks like this, that's 15X as old, looks like this, so mathematically, one that looks like this is X old. that is the only way one could come up with it, and I'm sure there is a mathematical way to come up with such a system, but that doesnt mean the person interpreting the system got it right, it doesnt mean that something couldnt happen to make things look different when they get so old, maybe its right, maybe its not.
It certainly won't contribute to the defense of creation or Evolution, so it really doesnt matter.

P.S. The reason many creationists say "you don't know the answer, so your wrong!" without realizing that not everybody (hardly anybody) know everything they'd need to know, for the argument, is probabley becuase they know all the answers for what they believe, whereas you don't.

Which brings me to this: for he who asks why we believe, without looking more into science, ask yourself, if you don't even know how or what to disprove creation with, with your science, why do you assume that correct?
We know what are entire argument is, wether some may be wrong with part, is not the point, we know what we believe, on every crucial matter with this, whereas, many times I've seen, "I don't know eveything about science!". Well, if you don't know, why do you believe it so strongly?

Like I said, I know everything I believe about the origin of this world, or, have determind it as unimportant, as the bible doesnt say either way, (i.e., the age of earth). Point? Every question the scientist has for the creationist, he can answer, however, the scientist cannot answer every question from the creationist.
Thats why they jump and say, I gotcha!

 

[LeadSlead#2]

sory for the double post.

FYI, I believe many who are cured with "miracles" are actually simply extremely strong-willed, and refuse to die.
but that's another subject, so I'll leave it at that.

I'm simply saying, science doesnt know why, some people have been cured of HIV or AIDS. (I also know the difference between aids and hiv, and people have been cured completley of both

 

[Touring Mars]

And as for "creastionists" believing it's about 6000 years old... I believe in Creation, but I don't know how old the earth is, and I don't believe people who say they do. while I could read on about how they eventually decided they think the earth is 5 billion years old, it will come down to, "this looks like this, that's 15X as old, looks like this, so mathematically, one that looks like this is X old. that is the only way one could come up with it, and I'm sure there is a mathematical way to come up with such a system, but that doesnt mean the person interpreting the system got it right, it doesnt mean that something couldnt happen to make things look different when they get so old, maybe its right, maybe its not.
It certainly won't contribute to the defense of creation or Evolution, so it really doesnt matter.

Oh but it does... the age of the Earth argument is central to the discussion for one simple reason. Creationists believe that the Earth is so young that the process of Evolution could not have occured... but by proving that the Earth is infact not young, and is many orders of magnitude older than Creationists claim, science has demonstrated beyond all (rational) doubt that the Earth is indeed old enough to support the theory of Evolution.

When you say that 'the person interpreting the system', you seem to be implying that one or two people have come to the conclusion that the Earth is old, and that everyone in science simply chooses to believe them (or not as the case me be...) This is infact not the case... the age of the Earth has been independently measured by innumerable sources and backed up by evidence at every stage in the process. Therefore, it is not merely one observation, or even an 'opinion' or a 'belief', but an established fact based on a solid consensus of evidence. Whether we as individuals choose to believe it is irrelevant... the fact will remain that the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old, and not just a few millenia old as Creationists will believe.

P.S. The reason many creationists say "you don't know the answer, so your wrong!" without realizing that not everybody (hardly anybody) know everything they'd need to know, for the argument, is probabley becuase they know all the answers for what they believe, whereas you don't.

I would rephrase that - they (the creationists) believe they know the answers, when infact they don't. Atleast if we (the scientists) don't know an answer, we will admit it - or atleast admit that there is insufficient evidence to justify a claim. The key point however, is that creationists, whether they are actually right or actually wrong about any given topic, they don't seem to have any qualms whatsoever about pulling figures out of thin air, with no evidential support, and then claiming it to be 'truth' simply because they believe...

Which brings me to this: for he who asks why we believe, without looking more into science, ask yourself, if you don't even know how or what to disprove creation with, with your science, why do you assume that correct? We know what are entire argument is, wether some may be wrong with part, is not the point, we know what we believe, on every crucial matter with this, whereas, many times I've seen, "I don't know eveything about science!". Well, if you don't know, why do you believe it so strongly?

On the contrary, it is easy to disprove creation theory with science. Creation theory postulates that 1) Man (as a species) was created by an intelligent designer, 2) the Earth is 6000 years old, and 3) the process of evolution is a myth, and therefore also that the Theory of Common Descent is a myth also.

1. There is no evidence of intelligent design anywhere. Therefore, as a scientific theory, it is a non-starter. The chief assertion of intelligent design theory, as proposed by Michael Behe (in his book, 'Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge To Evolution'), is that the biomolecular machinery found in nature is so complex that it is infact 'irreducibly complex' - an object that is irreducibly complex cannot function without all the constituent parts being intact and fully assembled. Behe argues that the eye is a perfect example of irreducible complexity - take one part of the eye away and it ceases to function. He also cites many more examples. But, unfortunately for Behe, his arguments have been demolished by Dawkins (in 'The Blind Watchmaker') and Shanks (in 'The God, The Devil and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory') who show clearly that nowhere in the human body is there any examples of so-called irreducible complexity.

2. Again, there is multiple evidence that this claim is plain wrong... see earlier posts in this thread - geological evidence proves that some rocks are billions of years old. Archeological and anthropological evidence proves that Mankind has existed in structured, even civilised societies for far longer than creationists think the world has even existed! Paleontological evidence clearly shows that rocks that formed millions of years ago once contained the bones of dead animals - i.e. fossils.

3. For me, the strongest evidence that Creation Theory is bunk, is the abundant evidence that supports the Theory of Common Descent. Genetic and biomolecular evidence shows (in fact proves) that species are related. There is no other plausible explanation for the genetic sequence similarities (and hence amino acid sequence in proteins) between different species than the theory of common descent.... look at this paper here - this paper shows a sequence alignment of the amino acid sequences of the protein cytochrome C, taken from 39 different species. The sequences are, of course, not identical. However, the similarity (or homology) of the sequences proves beyond any reasonable doubt, that all these species at one stage or another, had a common ancestor - (for a fuller discussion about this, feel free to send me a PM or an MSN message)... Fig 1. on page 10885 shows the 'relatedness' of the sequences (the caption tells you which sequence belongs to which species) - and the Fig 2. on page 10886 shows the actual sequence alignment. The take home message from this example is that only by the process of heredity (and hence common descent) could 39 separate species contain as many incidences of sequence similarity as this.

Creation theory has no explanation for this or any similar (and massively abundant) observations from the realm of biochemistry. Hence given the choice between 'believing' in Creation Theory, or 'believing' in the Theory of Common Descent, for a rational minded person, the choice is clear.

 

[Danoff]

FYI, I believe many who are cured with "miracles" are actually simply extremely strong-willed, and refuse to die.
but that's another subject, so I'll leave it at that.

Sorry, can't leave this one alone.

What does your "will" have to do with whether you survive a disease? Do they just not die because they really really really didn't want to die? That makes ZERO sense whatsoever.

 

[Swift]

Sorry, can't leave this one alone.

What does your "will" have to do with whether you survive a disease? Do they just not die because they really really really didn't want to die? That makes ZERO sense whatsoever.

Well, look at plesebos. There have been multiple studies where sugar pills were substituted for actutal drugs and the results were very positive.

The mind makes all the difference. Especially in the none chronic diseases.

 

[Danoff]

I have no doubt that the mind can cause perceived pain and illness - and that it can be tricked into fixing those things without drugs. I have no doubt that a person with a positive attitude will work hard at getting better (physical training, taking medication on time, excercise, eating right etc.). But I fail to see how a person can simply will themselves better. Explain to me the mechanics of that process. How exactly is it that a person can make themselves better simply by wanting it to be so?

 

[Kylehnat]

I have no doubt that the mind can cause perceived pain and illness - and that it can be tricked into fixing those things without drugs. I have no doubt that a person with a positive attitude will work hard at getting better (physical training, taking medication on time, excercise, eating right etc.). But I fail to see how a person can simply will themselves better. Explain to me the mechanics of that process. How exactly is it that a person can make themselves better simply by wanting it to be so?

I agree. When I get sick (a regular cold), I really only feel awful for 2 days or so. I give the cold to someone else, and they're out for a week. A lot of people stop doing important things when they're sick, just because they don't feel good. Eating is a major one, as illness usually smothers appetite. But where do you think the energy comes from for your immune system to do its work? A little bit of light exercise also helps, as it gets a lot of bodily systems active, which helps flush out the bad. When I get a cold, I have the mindset that if I force myself to do a few things, I'll feel better faster. It's motivation. Many people simply give up and don't do simple things that would help them feel better.

A positive state of mind leads to positive actions, but I'm not sure that neurons moving around differently in the brain will cause the illness to simply go away.

Also, I've never heard of anyone having AIDS that just "disappeared". As far as I know, AIDS is still a guaranteed death sentence.

 

[Famine]

AIDS is. HIV isn't. I've never heard of AIDS being reversed either.

 

[Swift]

AIDS is. HIV isn't. I've never heard of AIDS being reversed either.

I have, but most of you wouldn't believe me if I told you.

 

[Famine]

Direct me to the paper and I won't need to believe you.

 

[Touring Mars]

This is a very interesting (and controversial) line of discussion, one which I'd gladly contribute to, and have many opinions on, but can we keep it on-topic in this thread please? I would like to address the AIDS situation, but preferably not in this thread...

...interesting article in the Guardian today, suggesting that chimpanzees could be reclassified under the genus 'homo', rather than their current status as 'pan'... to reflect the increasing evidence that chimps are far more like humans than other species of great ape... article here

 

[ledhed]

Help clear this up for me Nars man...why is a pigs organs a closer match than a chimps to a human ?

 

[niky]

They're not a closer match per se. It's just that they don't elicit a big immune response. It's like the difference between eating pig's brains (delicious stuff, try it sometime. ) and chimp brains. You can get a mild allergy from eating pig's brains if you're unlucky... eating chimp's brains can kill you. Oops, wrong analogy... you can die from eating monkey brains because of laughing sickness.

 

[LeadSlead#2]

Danoff - Explain the man that wakes from a multiple year coma, and the one the dies..... Explain the man who survives 5X bypass surgery, and all those who die from 3. along with what everybody else said too.

TM - I never said everything creationists believe is correct, they simply know exactly what their stance is, and reply with their belief, and that's why they say HA! Not meaning it's logical, or rational, it simply means that's the line of thought your going mind-to-mind with usually.
Now, from a technical standpoint, anybody believing the earth was created, believes in creation, maybe just a different form. And you can say believing what many of earth's creations has discovered is the only rational standpoint, but as I said before, why would you possibly presume to be able to understand or discover yours and the earth's origin, from such a massive creator? that is quite irrational to me, and maybe somebody else too.

One more thing, how come the homo-sapien is the only truly intelligent being? how come, in 4.5 billion years, and all the evolution that has occured, are there absolutly NO species that are even comparable, or better yet, rivals? why did the atoms go to so much trouble for us, but to hell with all the rest?


P.S. I've never heard a christian or anybody who believes in creation say there hasnt been time for evolution, minus the few, who based that on the earth being 6000 years old, which, if it is, then maybe they'd be right.

 

[Joey D]

People say the Earth is only 6000 years old . Wow they have carbon dated dinosaurs to be 65 million years old.

 

[code_kev]

I have, but most of you wouldn't believe me if I told you.

Swift if your refering to Chruchy healing, let me say this:

If faith healing and all that stuff worked, it would be found in every hosiptal in the world. But it doesn't work. So it's not. The only effect it could have is to make the patient feel positive, which could in some way impact on their health slightly at best.

One more thing, how come the homo-sapien is the only truly intelligent being? how come, in 4.5 billion years, and all the evolution that has occured, are there absolutly NO species that are even comparable, or better yet, rivals? why did the atoms go to so much trouble for us, but to hell with all the rest?

Here's an example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

We are the only ones left because, to put it simply, we are smarter.

 

[Swift]

Swift if your refering to Chruchy healing, let me say this:

If faith healing and all that stuff worked, it would be found in every hosiptal in the world. But it doesn't work. So it's not. The only effect it could have is to make the patient feel positive, which could in some way impact on their health slightly at best.



Here's an example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

We are the only ones left because, to put it simply, we are smarter.

Code Kev, if you're talking about medical science working, it would eclipse any possibility of faith healing because it would be able to take care of all problems, not make mistakes or incorrect diagnosis. To say nothing of incorrect prescriptions. The truth is it DOESN'T always work and has great limitations. Just as I'm sure you'd argue any/all faith healing does.

That is the dumbest argument that I've every heard against the divine healing. The absolute worst. If choose to say, "I don't believe that's true, it was just coincidence" that's fine. But you CAN'T dismiss the possibility just because it goes outside the box of science. That, to me, would be the epitome of closed mindedness.

 

[Danoff]

Danoff - Explain the man that wakes from a multiple year coma, and the one the dies..... Explain the man who survives 5X bypass surgery, and all those who die from 3. along with what everybody else said too.

How do you explain it? Is it faith? Does everyone who survives a 5X bypass believe in Christ? Does everyone who dies from 3 not? People's bodies are different. It's not all cosmetic, especially not after 50 years of being treated differently.

One more thing, how come the homo-sapien is the only truly intelligent being? how come, in 4.5 billion years, and all the evolution that has occured, are there absolutly NO species that are even comparable, or better yet, rivals? why did the atoms go to so much trouble for us, but to hell with all the rest?

We're not the only intelligent being. Monkeys are quite intelligent, as are dolphins and several other members of the animal kingdom (of which we are a part). There is a wide range of intelligence out there among animals... which is why you can teach your dog to sit but not your hampster.

We're the MOST intelligent being, all evidence suggests that we're the most intelligent being in the history of the planet. We're the first being intelligent enough to develop a society and harness the mind. No other being in the history of the world has done that, but that isn't totally necessary to pass on genes.

Animals are able to reporduce without intelligence, they only need to be strong enough and physically capable enough to survive past breeding age. That's why it makes a lot of sense for a smaller animal without very many natural weapons - like a monkey, to rely on its brain - clever use of it's environment to keep it alive. Large animals that rely on physical prowess (like dinosaurs) don't need much of a brain, they just need big teeth and muscles to stay alive. Over time, natural selection focuses those traits to extremes.

You clearly have a lot to learn about evolution, and you should spend some time educating yourself about it.

 

[code_kev]

Code Kev, if you're talking about medical science working, it would eclipse any possibility of faith healing because it would be able to take care of all problems, not make mistakes or incorrect diagnosis. To say nothing of incorrect prescriptions. The truth is it DOESN'T always work and has great limitations. Just as I'm sure you'd argue any/all faith healing does.

That is the dumbest argument that I've every heard against the divine healing. The absolute worst. If choose to say, "I don't believe that's true, it was just coincidence" that's fine. But you CAN'T dismiss the possibility just because it goes outside the box of science. That, to me, would be the epitome of closed mindedness.

My argument is dumb? No. It's not. If the stuff worked, it would be used, as it's cheaper then many conventional medicines. Faith healing is used by the ignorant and the desperate. For example, people with cancer so terminal they have no hope, so they turn to the faith healer in desperation. They tend to die, you just don't hear about em as they are too dead to say anything. You just hear the ones who recovered naturally. Alive people tend to make more noise then dead people.

I can easily dismiss it. It's 2005, not 1205. Hell, lets start using some "old time style" cures. If I ever have a serious illness, I'll use some old time Medieval cures.

You guys only hear what you want to believe, anything pro Christian, anything that backs you up, your all ears to any shred of weak evidence to back you up, no matter how ridiculous, but anything disagrees with your view of this world, no matter how over whelming the evidence against you is, you rubbish it. You don't deserve to live in the modern world. I'm disgusted how in todays society people are happy to ignore scientific reason, and embrace any piece of dogma thrown to them.

Well matey, if you ever get cancer, i DARE you to put your money where your mouth is. Go to a faith healer, ignore modern treatments. You'l get first hand experience of it being fake, but by then it will too late.

(changed post slightly, went abit too far)

 

[Famine]

Unnecessary, ck.

He does mention giant beasts, things that could easily be dinosaurs

Or they could quite easily be bears. Or elephants. Or Kraken. Or dragons. Funnily, the Bible also mentions unicorns.


Cold reading - be vague, get the participant to fill in the gaps themselves, pass it off as a miracle.

 

[code_kev]

Not really. What I said is pretty accurate. Even the bit I edited out. The points I make are valid. If it worked, it would be used.

Religion has been used as "cure" for hundreds of years, and for hundreds of years, it's pretty much failed.
This stuff was popular in times when people didn't understand how germs and illness spread, and were told by the Church that it was punishment from God for their behavior. Some old cures even included people being told to visit holy sites to cure them selves. Obviously, we are smarter now, or you would think so.

Swift I'm not trying to attack you btw, though it probably seems like it. I just like a heated debate, and I tend to throw sarcasm into my arguments. I also like evidence. Your word alone is not good enough.

 

[Swift]

CK, you proved my point that you are very closed minded. Thank you.

I've said more then once that modern medicine is a great thing. But there are things that medicine simply can't do, cancer being one of them.

Are you going to tell me that you've NEVER heard of someone being diagnosed with a disease and then the disease left? I'm talking about a serious disease, mass or other significant thing. I'm sure you have. Now, if you say it's coincidence, more power to you. But don't say, "There is no validity for divine healing because it doesn't work 100% of the time" That IS a dumb argument because if I change it to say "medical science" then suddenly modern medicine is looking stupid and it certainly is NOT.

Also, I have exercise induced asthma. I use an inhaler. Now, I get prayer that I will be healed of this, but if not, I won't loose my confidence in God. Just like if someone goes to the doctor and they can't heal your problem. So, I don't take any "piece of dogma" thrown at me. I accept the fact that were it not for modern science, many people in my family would be gone. But by the grace of God and medicine, they are still here.

Do me a favor and calm down. You're so one sided you can't understand how someone could believe God and acknowledge the validly of science at the same time.

 

[code_kev]

People get better with out God. The human body can be very good at recovery, better then people realise. It can also be said that people get better with out the use of medicines. A point I very much agree with.

The closed minded argument is over used btw. Just because I don't believe in what you say does not mean I havn't thought it over.