Do you accept evolution as fact? Yes/No?

[Vic]

Wow. That is an amazingly weak argument... as though science has never changed its statements after the fact?

You are simply mistaken. Religion does not want to be science. Nor should science want to become religion. Get a freakin' clue, all of you.

 

[Jack31081]

Originally posted by: Vic
Wow. That is an amazingly weak argument... as though science has never changed its statements after the fact?

You are simply mistaken. Religion does not want to be science. Nor should science want to become religion. Get a freakin' clue, all of you.

Whoa. Since when did we all hold ForThePeople's viewpoint?

To ForThePeople:

You're trying to convince everyone that religion isn't science? Uh...in the words of many an 8 year old, "No duh". You're not poking any holes in creation by saying it's not science. As far as Creationists changing their statement to fit reality...I don't think they're doing that at all. In fact, I think it's pretty clear that Creationists are still clinging pretty strongly to the story set forth thousands of years ago, despite any scientific knowledge that may show otherwise.

But to start with the idea that the Bible is right, or that God did it, or any similar such idea is to depart from true science.

This is an absurd statement. No one with this view is departing from true science. They never started with science. It's all about FAITH. But apparently, that concept is completely lost on you.

No one's trying to impart Creation with predictive and scientific power. I don't know where you got that idea.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: Jack31081

Originally posted by: Vic
Wow. That is an amazingly weak argument... as though science has never changed its statements after the fact?

You are simply mistaken. Religion does not want to be science. Nor should science want to become religion. Get a freakin' clue, all of you.

Whoa. Since when did we all hold ForThePeople's viewpoint?

To ForThePeople:

You're trying to convince everyone that religion isn't science? Uh...in the words of many an 8 year old, "No duh". You're not poking any holes in creation by saying it's not science. As far as Creationists changing their statement to fit reality...I don't think they're doing that at all. In fact, I think it's pretty clear that Creationists are still clinging pretty strongly to the story set forth thousands of years ago, despite any scientific knowledge that may show otherwise.

But to start with the idea that the Bible is right, or that God did it, or any similar such idea is to depart from true science.

This is an absurd statement. No one with this view is departing from true science. They never started with science. It's all about FAITH. But apparently, that concept is completely lost on you.

No one's trying to impart Creation with predictive and scientific power. I don't know where you got that idea.

Then why the problem with evolution, which is science? Why do they want to teach Creationism in biology class and make sure their children aren't exposed to evolution?

The fact of the matter is that they are masquarading as science. It is quite clear - just look at Gen Stonewall's "gap reconstructionist" page where it starts with the inerrancy of the Bible and attempts to refute established, well proven geologic science.

To say that religion is not science is obvious to me. But you can't deny that the Creationists are trying to put Creation in science classes and attack evolution.

How about you tell Gen Stonewall that his "gap reconstructionist" link is nonsense, that it is religion and not science? And tell the same to all "Intelligent Design" people that ID is not science but evolutionary theory is?

It is not me who is uncomfortable with science and afraid of putting my ideas to the test. It is the Creationists who think Creationism is science and should be taught in science class that are the ones who are confused.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jack31081
Whoa. Since when did we all hold ForThePeople's viewpoint?

Oops. Sorry if it came out that way. It's just my disgust that I keep reading that same ignorant viewpoint rehashed over and over again, always with the same pompous tone.

I understand now why people stop responding to his PM's. What is the point in having a "serious" argument with someone who thinks they are so right about being so wrong?

And you are correct. It is not that religion keeps changing, it is that it doesn't change. Science is what keeps changing in order to conform thought to reality. As it should, lest it become as dogmatic as religion.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: Vic
Wow. That is an amazingly weak argument... as though science has never changed its statements after the fact?

You are simply mistaken. Religion does not want to be science. Nor should science want to become religion. Get a freakin' clue, all of you.

I don't think you understood the analogy very well. Science often changes to adapt new ideas and experimental results.

The difference is that it never behaves as the pyschic did. Predictions that are wrong are simply wrong.

Take, for example, the idea of the ether being the medium for light. Michaelson-Morley proved this to be false. An analogy to the pyschic would be for science to say "we never thought there was an ether in the first place" (which did not happen) instead of "obviously we were wrong about the ether and light does not use it as a medium" (which did happen).

The second case would be the same as the pyschic saying "obviously my prediction was false and I will not be in the top 10" (which did not happen) rather than "my prediction was to be in group 10 to audition, not to be in the top 10" (which did happen).

Do you see the difference? It is about being willing to be wrong and correct your thinking to incorporate new information (science) versus never able to admit being wrong and re-writing what actually did happen (the pyschic).

Religion - specifically Creationism/Intelligent Design - absolutely do want to be science. They want it to be taught in biology classes despite the fact that they are not science. You are simply incorrect about that point.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
Then why the problem with evolution, which is science? Why do they want to teach Creationism in biology class and make sure their children aren't exposed to evolution?

The fact of the matter is that they are masquarading as science. It is quite clear - just look at Gen Stonewall's "gap reconstructionist" page where it starts with the inerrancy of the Bible and attempts to refute established, well proven geologic science.

To say that religion is not science is obvious to me. But you can't deny that the Creationists are trying to put Creation in science classes and attack evolution.

How about you tell Gen Stonewall that his "gap reconstructionist" link is nonsense, that it is religion and not science? And tell the same to all "Intelligent Design" people that ID is not science but evolutionary theory is?

It is not me who is uncomfortable with science and afraid of putting my ideas to the test. It is the Creationists who think Creationism is science and should be taught in science class that are the ones who are confused.

As long as individuals posing as scientists keep trying to falsely teach other people's children in classroms that science proves that God doesn't exist, then those believers in religion will be in opposition to science.
Surely this can't be difficult to understand.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Jack31081
Whoa. Since when did we all hold ForThePeople's viewpoint?

Oops. Sorry if it came out that way. It's just my disgust that I keep reading that same ignorant viewpoint rehashed over and over again, always with the same pompous tone.

I understand now why people stop responding to his PM's. What is the point in having a "serious" argument with someone who thinks they are so right about being so wrong?

And you are correct. It is not that religion keeps changing, it is that it doesn't change. Science is what keeps changing in order to conform thought to reality. As it should, lest it become as dogmatic as religion.

The problem here is that you are assuming the the opinion of non-scientists is equal to that of scientists.

Quite simply Gen Stonewall is not a scientist whereas I am. I have the education and experience to evaluate scientific claims, he simply does not.

This may seem heavy handed (I admit that) but, unlike whether chocolate or vanilla tastes better, there is a world of difference between people who are scientists and those who are not.

Science is not a group vote. It is about reality. It does not matter how many people believe something - only what can be experimentally demonstrated.

Becoming a good scientist takes a lot of education. You simply can't impart equal validity to some random guy and someone with years of scientific education.

I ask you what is so "ignorant" about my viewpoint? Where are the flaws in my reasoning? At what point did I incorrectly describe evolution or modern science?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
I don't think you understood the analogy very well. Science often changes to adapt new ideas and experimental results.

The difference is that it never behaves as the pyschic did. Predictions that are wrong are simply wrong.

Take, for example, the idea of the ether being the medium for light. Michaelson-Morley proved this to be false. An analogy to the pyschic would be for science to say "we never thought there was an ether in the first place" (which did not happen) instead of "obviously we were wrong about the ether and light does not use it as a medium" (which did happen).

The second case would be the same as the pyschic saying "obviously my prediction was false and I will not be in the top 10" (which did not happen) rather than "my prediction was to be in group 10 to audition, not to be in the top 10" (which did happen).

Do you see the difference? It is about being willing to be wrong and correct your thinking to incorporate new information (science) versus never able to admit being wrong and re-writing what actually did happen (the pyschic).

Religion - specifically Creationism/Intelligent Design - absolutely do want to be science. They want it to be taught in biology classes despite the fact that they are not science. You are simply incorrect about that point.

Your analogy is deeply flawed. For one thing, the practice of being a psychic is expressly forbidden in the Bible. For another, it is expressly anecdotal. And strike 3, it is FUD.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
The problem here is that you are assuming the the opinion of non-scientists is equal to that of scientists.

Quite simply Gen Stonewall is not a scientist whereas I am. I have the education and experience to evaluate scientific claims, he simply does not.

This may seem heavy handed (I admit that) but, unlike whether chocolate or vanilla tastes better, there is a world of difference between people who are scientists and those who are not.

Science is not a group vote. It is about reality. It does not matter how many people believe something - only what can be experimentally demonstrated.

Becoming a good scientist takes a lot of education. You simply can't impart equal validity to some random guy and someone with years of scientific education.

I ask you what is so "ignorant" about my viewpoint? Where are the flaws in my reasoning? At what point did I incorrectly describe evolution or modern science?

Ah yes... and I'm Christopher Walken. Nice to meet ya.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
Then why the problem with evolution, which is science? Why do they want to teach Creationism in biology class and make sure their children aren't exposed to evolution?

The fact of the matter is that they are masquarading as science. It is quite clear - just look at Gen Stonewall's "gap reconstructionist" page where it starts with the inerrancy of the Bible and attempts to refute established, well proven geologic science.

To say that religion is not science is obvious to me. But you can't deny that the Creationists are trying to put Creation in science classes and attack evolution.

How about you tell Gen Stonewall that his "gap reconstructionist" link is nonsense, that it is religion and not science? And tell the same to all "Intelligent Design" people that ID is not science but evolutionary theory is?

It is not me who is uncomfortable with science and afraid of putting my ideas to the test. It is the Creationists who think Creationism is science and should be taught in science class that are the ones who are confused.

As long as individuals posing as scientists keep trying to falsely teach other people's children in classroms that science proves that God doesn't exist, then those believers in religion will be in opposition to science.
Surely this can't be difficult to understand.

No scientist has ever tried to teach people that God doesn't exist. This is altogether different from demonstrating that Creationism is nonsense - which is true - but no scientist tries to teach that God doesn't exist.

That is not something in the domain of science. There is no way to experiment for this, and therefore it is not science.

That is an altogether different question from what should be taught in a science classroom. We should teach real science - evolution - and not nonsene (Creationism / ID). If people think that teaching evolution is the same as teaching that God doesn't exist then it is their problem and not mine, and not a fault of science.

It was the pyschic's problem that she looked ridiculous.

 

[Jack31081]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
Take, for example, the idea of the ether being the medium for light. Michaelson-Morley proved this to be false. An analogy to the pyschic would be for science to say "we never thought there was an ether in the first place" (which did not happen) instead of "obviously we were wrong about the ether and light does not use it as a medium" (which did happen).

W00t! The Michaelson-Morley experiments took place at Case Western, my alma mater.

Religion - specifically Creationism/Intelligent Design - absolutely do want to be science. They want it to be taught in biology classes despite the fact that they are not science. You are simply incorrect about that point.

Not all who believe in Creation want it to be taught in schools. The nutcakes who do want creation taught came up with ID, a 'scientific theory' that's just creation with a veil covering its face. But the few do not define the many. Creation was never meant to be science, and I'd say a majority understand this.

I'll say it again. Arguing that creation isn't science doesn't do a thing to discredit it.

Religion will adapt to science like it always has. It'll wait for definitive proof. Christianity held that the earth was flat until it was proven otherwise. In the same manner, orthodox Christianity will hold that creation took place as described in the bible until science can proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not. As of yet, that's not occured. And when it does, my guess is Christianity will mold its view and say that creation actually took place over billions of years, with the Creator providing the inital spark of life, letting evolution take over from there, knowing full well that eventually humans would result. Then that viewpoint will remain until abiogenesis is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Of course, the chances of the former happening are pretty slim, and the chances of the latter occuring are essentially zero.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
I don't think you understood the analogy very well. Science often changes to adapt new ideas and experimental results.

The difference is that it never behaves as the pyschic did. Predictions that are wrong are simply wrong.

Take, for example, the idea of the ether being the medium for light. Michaelson-Morley proved this to be false. An analogy to the pyschic would be for science to say "we never thought there was an ether in the first place" (which did not happen) instead of "obviously we were wrong about the ether and light does not use it as a medium" (which did happen).

The second case would be the same as the pyschic saying "obviously my prediction was false and I will not be in the top 10" (which did not happen) rather than "my prediction was to be in group 10 to audition, not to be in the top 10" (which did happen).

Do you see the difference? It is about being willing to be wrong and correct your thinking to incorporate new information (science) versus never able to admit being wrong and re-writing what actually did happen (the pyschic).

Religion - specifically Creationism/Intelligent Design - absolutely do want to be science. They want it to be taught in biology classes despite the fact that they are not science. You are simply incorrect about that point.

Your analogy is deeply flawed. For one thing, the practice of being a psychic is expressly forbidden in the Bible. For another, it is expressly anecdotal. And strike 3, it is FUD.

Whether the practice of being a psychic is forbidden is completely off-topic and irrelevant. I have no idea why you even mentioned that.

Secondly it is analogous, not anecdotal. It is a something I used to compare an everydaye experience that this audience might know (American Idol) to a scientific experiment that they were likely to not know (the Michaelson-Morley experiment). The point of the analogy was to demonstrate a fundamental difference in reasoning, which I did.

And how is it FUD?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
No scientist has ever tried to teach people that God doesn't exist. This is altogether different from demonstrating that Creationism is nonsense - which is true - but no scientist tries to teach that God doesn't exist.

That is not something in the domain of science. There is no way to experiment for this, and therefore it is not science.

That is an altogether different question from what should be taught in a science classroom. We should teach real science - evolution - and not nonsene (Creationism / ID). If people think that teaching evolution is the same as teaching that God doesn't exist then it is their problem and not mine, and not a fault of science.

It was the pyschic's problem that she looked ridiculous.

Now you're simply echoing the same argument that I have been making throughout this whole thread, while failing to recognize that kids in schools are taught that abiogenesis is a part of theory of evolution and should be accepted on the same authority. And that extremely anti-religious individuals who call themselves atheists tend to believe and expouse the same. And it is for this reason that the religious crowd is very concerned about just what is being passed off as science in the classrooms these days. Get it?

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
No scientist has ever tried to teach people that God doesn't exist. This is altogether different from demonstrating that Creationism is nonsense - which is true - but no scientist tries to teach that God doesn't exist.

That is not something in the domain of science. There is no way to experiment for this, and therefore it is not science.

That is an altogether different question from what should be taught in a science classroom. We should teach real science - evolution - and not nonsene (Creationism / ID). If people think that teaching evolution is the same as teaching that God doesn't exist then it is their problem and not mine, and not a fault of science.

It was the pyschic's problem that she looked ridiculous.

Now you're simply echoing the same argument that I have been making throughout this whole thread, while failing to recognize that kids in schools are taught that abiogenesis is a part of theory of evolution and should be accepted on the same authority. And that extremely anti-religious individuals who call themselves atheists tend to believe and expouse the same. And it is for this reason that the religious crowd is very concerned about just what is being passed off as science in the classrooms these days. Get it?

It depends on what you mean by "abiogenesis."

If you mean "did all life start from one type of proto-life and evolve, over billions of years, to the current plethora of lifeforms?" the answer is absolutely yes.

If you mean "can we build a proto-life from raw ingredients that will reproduce itself?" the answer is "probably but we haven't yet figured out how to do it. We probably will some day."

If you mean "is life the result of God?" then the answer is "that is not science and we can't answer that, it is a question for religion."

If you mean "did life on Earth begin with a proto-life built from raw ingredients that evolved to be the progenitor of all known life?" the answer is "probably but we haven't figured out how to do it, however it is completely consistent with our knowledge of science and nature."

I don't know about you but a good science teacher would address all of those questions. If you think that any of those are somehow teaching that God doesn't exist then again I say that the problem is with you and not science. None of those teach anything about God.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
Whether the practice of being a psychic is forbidden is completely off-topic and irrelevant. I have no idea why you even mentioned that.

Secondly it is analogous, not anecdotal. It is a something I used to compare an everydaye experience that this audience might know (American Idol) to a scientific experiment that they were likely to not know (the Michaelson-Morley experiment). The point of the analogy was to demonstrate a fundamental difference in reasoning, which I did.

And how is it FUD?

1. Because psychic != religion. That you might think otherwise is laughable. A psychic is generally an individual lying glory seeker. Religion is the practice of centuries-old traditions.

2. Anecdotal. Anecdote. You took a single event based on a casual observation and tried to expand it as a model of something much, much larger, and completely unrelated. Hopefully, you do not do the same in your scientific studies

3. If you have to ask... :roll: Science is taught in schools. As the overwhelming majority of religious individual want. True, there are some whackos who would like to see creation taught instead, but they are such an overwhelming minority that they are best ignored. As I already mentioned though, there are a larger number of religious individuals who are rightly concerned about just what is being passed off a legitimate science to their children in schools, but to expand that into wanting to teach creation in schools is FUD, pure and simple.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
It depends on what you mean by "abiogenesis."

If you mean "did all life start from one type of proto-life and evolve, over billions of years, to the current plethora of lifeforms?" the answer is absolutely yes.

If you mean "can we build a proto-life from raw ingredients that will reproduce itself?" the answer is "probably but we haven't yet figured out how to do it. We probably will some day."

If you mean "is life the result of God?" then the answer is "that is not science and we can't answer that, it is a question for religion."

If you mean "did life on Earth begin with a proto-life built from raw ingredients that evolved to be the progenitor of all known life?" the answer is "probably but we haven't figured out how to do it, however it is completely consistent with our knowledge of science and nature."

I don't know about you but a good science teacher would address all of those questions. If you think that any of those are somehow teaching that God doesn't exist then again I say that the problem is with you and not science. None of those teach anything about God.

I am not in disagreement with your statement here. However, I think it is pretty well accepted that there is a serious lack of good public school teachers period in our country, much less good public school science teachers. That many teachers are not teaching properly is accepted and well-known.
I see nothing wrong with making sure that teachers teach science properly. Do you?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jack31081
Christianity held that the earth was flat until it was proven otherwise.

I agreed wholeheartedly with your post, so this is just nitpicking, but that sentence is not true. That the earth is round is obvious to anyone who can see the horizon.

In fact, this is among my personal list of the 3 biggest lies taught in public schools, which are:
1. Ancient peoples believed the earth was flat until Columbus discovered America. Completely false.
2. That the Mayflower pilgrims were Anglican Puritans seeking religious freedom when in fact they were Calvinist radicals fleeing prosecution for their terrorist-esque crimes.
3. Evolution proves God doesn't exist.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
It depends on what you mean by "abiogenesis."

If you mean "did all life start from one type of proto-life and evolve, over billions of years, to the current plethora of lifeforms?" the answer is absolutely yes.

If you mean "can we build a proto-life from raw ingredients that will reproduce itself?" the answer is "probably but we haven't yet figured out how to do it. We probably will some day."

If you mean "is life the result of God?" then the answer is "that is not science and we can't answer that, it is a question for religion."

If you mean "did life on Earth begin with a proto-life built from raw ingredients that evolved to be the progenitor of all known life?" the answer is "probably but we haven't figured out how to do it, however it is completely consistent with our knowledge of science and nature."

I don't know about you but a good science teacher would address all of those questions. If you think that any of those are somehow teaching that God doesn't exist then again I say that the problem is with you and not science. None of those teach anything about God.

I am not in disagreement with your statement here. However, I think it is pretty well accepted that there is a serious lack of good public school teachers period in our country, much less good public school science teachers. That many teachers are not teaching properly is accepted and well-known.
I see nothing wrong with making sure that teachers teach science properly. Do you?

Like almost everything else it depends on where you are. I had excellent science and biology teachers in high school. They were the ones who taught me the scientific method and how to think critically, how to do science.

I should state that I went to school in NY.

Our teachers were for the AP science exams. Our school regularly killed on the exam, it was rare for people to get a 3 (out of 5, a 3 is passing and a 4 and 5 are considered exceptional). We had tons of 4's and 5's.

The NYTimes just covered the results of state by state AP exams. Basically New York rocked them, being the top performer.

New York is the first state to have more than 20 percent of its graduating class achieve a grade of 3 or higher on an exam. Other states are close -- Maryland, Utah, Florida, California and Massachusetts had 18 to 20 percent of students earning the passing score.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/01/25/advanced.placement.ap

That's a lot of blue!

And who were the worst performers?

Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana.

But that 2004 percentage was far behind the national average of 10.2 percent. It ranked Alabama ahead of only three states Louisiana, Mississippi and Nebraska. And it pales by comparison to such states as New York, where one of five students showed mastery of an AP subject, or even Utah, where more than 19 percent did so.

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/NEWSV5/storyV5edap128w.htm

You wouldn't be surprised to learn that the top performing states also had the highest teacher salaries. And the worst performers? The worst salaries.

Average teacher salaries. California had the nation's highest average salary in 2002-03, at $55,693. States joining California in the top tier were Michigan, at $54,020; Connecticut, at $53,962; New Jersey, at $53,872; and the District of Columbia, at $53,194.

I guess my point is that you get what you pay for. My science education was superb and really prepared me for college and medical school. I don't think Bible Belt people can say the same.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Vic
Your analogy is deeply flawed. For one thing, the practice of being a psychic is expressly forbidden in the Bible. For another, it is expressly anecdotal. And strike 3, it is FUD.

Hunh? I think your distorting the meaning and context of certain Mosaic law in that the priests in the kingdom of Judah practiced centralized worship (only certain animal sacrifices could be performed at the temple, they couldn't be performed by people outside of the temple....only the priests could talk directly to God...etc.)

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Vic
Your analogy is deeply flawed. For one thing, the practice of being a psychic is expressly forbidden in the Bible.

OH NOoo-o-o-ozers! Does this mean I'll burn in hell if I don't cancel my subscription to Pacific Telephone & Telepath? :laugh:

 

[slash196]

Sorry for the distruption, if there's a huge flamewar going on. I'm not about to read 18 pages full of posts, so I'll just interject my little blurb. Instead of arguing about evolution on teh intarweb so every1 w1ll n0 ur 1337 sk1llz, why don't you read a book? "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins is evolution explained in a few hundred easy-to-read pages. I'm sure you can find it online somewhere. Or even at your local bookstore. EVERYONE that is reading this topic should read this book, no matter what you believe, don't believe, know, or think you know.

EDIT: And "God's Debris" by Scott Adams (yes, THAT Scott Adams) ain't half-bad either, though it's fictional.

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: Vic
In fact, this is among my personal list of the 3 biggest lies taught in public schools, which are:
1. Ancient peoples believed the earth was flat until Columbus discovered America. Completely false.

Wasn't taught in my school...

2. That the Mayflower pilgrims were Anglican Puritans seeking religious freedom when in fact they were Calvinist radicals fleeing prosecution for their terrorist-esque crimes.

Also wasn't taught...

3. Evolution proves God doesn't exist.

And also wasn't taught. Your continued use of this straw man demonstrates clearly that you have no integrity whatsoever.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dgevert
Your continued use of this straw man demonstrates clearly that you have no integrity whatsoever.

Your continued use of unfounded insults and lack of objectivity demonstrates clearly that you have no integrity whatsoever.
ForThePeople argued that religious people were trying to push creationism in schools, and presented it as a blanket issue that all religious people were seeking. I'm sure you agreed with that. But when, in an attempt to bring more perspective to the debate, I argue the other side of the picture, you claim I am using strawman and attempt to prove it using personal anecdote? :roll:

Kindly STFU until you can bring some actual intelligence to the conversation (which, from my observation, likely will not ever occur).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Vic
Your analogy is deeply flawed. For one thing, the practice of being a psychic is expressly forbidden in the Bible.

OH NOoo-o-o-ozers! Does this mean I'll burn in hell if I don't cancel my subscription to Pacific Telephone & Telepath? :laugh:

The concepts of Hell and Satan are incompatible with that of the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent Almighty God.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic
Your analogy is deeply flawed. For one thing, the practice of being a psychic is expressly forbidden in the Bible. For another, it is expressly anecdotal. And strike 3, it is FUD.

Hunh? I think your distorting the meaning and context of certain Mosaic law in that the priests in the kingdom of Judah practiced centralized worship (only certain animal sacrifices could be performed at the temple, they couldn't be performed by people outside of the temple....only the priests could talk directly to God...etc.)

No. Exodus 22:18, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."