Tweet
Re: ASPERGER’S SYNDROME – Another word for ‘EVIL’ ??!
Dear Sinner,
This is a good start. You justify your existence by the ignorance of others. This is also a magnificent challenge for you. To further your own cause, it is now expected that you give evidence material of your own and that you are familiar with your own evidence material, as we are familiar with ours, the Bible. It would be even better if you were also familiar with material that disagrees with yours. In fact, the better you know the data or your adversary, the better chances you have of persuading them. Let us see. My expectations are high. Perhaps you'll be the one to falsify God.
OK, this is not evidence. This is just an emotional outburst of you admitting your ignorance of the Bible. Perhaps the evidence you promised is below, so I'll assess your nice post further.
This is still not actual evidence but at least you're presenting some secular claims that we can assess. This is better.
You actually did not "bust" that theory but just claimed that it has been busted. This is no evidence, it's just an assertion. Please learn to distinguish opinions and anecdotes from data.
"...the earth was formed over 4.5 billion years ago. How did we find this number, you ask? Answer is simple: Carbon-dating and studying the composition of the rocks that are nearest to the Earth's core."
"Oldest stones nearest to the earth's core" (I'm humoring you and assuming that the Earth were a sphere and the innermost core is at 3,954 miles deep).
OK, all this was not evidence but your unreliable memories of some science classes. What you need to do is
I'm still hopeful. Let's see if you have some better evidence below!
"Chi?"
OK, perhaps the evidence is in the last part of your post!
We cling to the Bible because people like you constantly fail to provide the evidence they claim to have. You disregard supernatural intervention when it comes to Jesus but cherish it when it comes to obscure Oriental mythology. You cherry-pick your science. Finally, you employ argumentative fallacies by concentrating not on the data but on the character of your opponent. A "fool" may still know the correct answer. It is the evidence that we should assess, not our opponents. This is called the ad hominem fallacy.
Being unbiased means that to study all sides of the argument before making a decision. We know our Bible and our secular science. You don't know the Bible and based on the material above, you do not know your science, either. It is no surprise that God was aware of this phenomenon.
Proverbs 15:14
The heart of him that hath understanding seeketh knowledge: but the mouth of fools feedeth on foolishness.
Yours in Christ,
Elmer
Originally posted by FireyHell
View Post
This is a good start. You justify your existence by the ignorance of others. This is also a magnificent challenge for you. To further your own cause, it is now expected that you give evidence material of your own and that you are familiar with your own evidence material, as we are familiar with ours, the Bible. It would be even better if you were also familiar with material that disagrees with yours. In fact, the better you know the data or your adversary, the better chances you have of persuading them. Let us see. My expectations are high. Perhaps you'll be the one to falsify God.
I'll give you evidence
First: How am I supposed to know what has been created around me is by some magical deity resting in a magical place that, despite science disproving it being above out atmosphere, religious people still insist exists, just somewhere. There is absolutely no evidence of a god creating us, our planet, or the universe we reside in. A single verse is far from enough to convince me of some deity existing.
First: How am I supposed to know what has been created around me is by some magical deity resting in a magical place that, despite science disproving it being above out atmosphere, religious people still insist exists, just somewhere. There is absolutely no evidence of a god creating us, our planet, or the universe we reside in. A single verse is far from enough to convince me of some deity existing.
Second: Again, no evidence to support a god creating our planet. And at first people believed the sky was water held up by a dome (Chek your old testament), and look at how that theory was busted. Also, if our planet is only 6,000 years old as you claim, then how did fossils that have been carbon-dated to be millions of years old end up embedded in the ground of the planet. Also, bear in mind that scientists, not biased creationist ones at that, have found that the earth was formed over 4.5 billion years ago. How did we find this number, you ask? Answer is simple: Carbon-dating and studying the composition of the rocks that are nearest to the Earth's core. Furthermore, after initial formation it would take the Earth around 3 billion years to cool from the immense heat and fusion that formed it, so even if the Earth was less that 4.5 billion years old it is still at least over 3 billion years old
- The sky actually is water held up by the dome. This is stated very clearly in the opening pages of the Bible.
- Genesis 1:6-7 - And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
You actually did not "bust" that theory but just claimed that it has been busted. This is no evidence, it's just an assertion. Please learn to distinguish opinions and anecdotes from data.
"...the earth was formed over 4.5 billion years ago. How did we find this number, you ask? Answer is simple: Carbon-dating and studying the composition of the rocks that are nearest to the Earth's core."
- Really? Now, let us see what the secular scientists have to say. If we consider radiocarbon dating, it seems that your knowledge is seriously limited.
Radiocarbon dating is one of the most widely used scientific dating methods in archaeology and environmental science. It can be applied to most organic materials and spans dates from a few hundred years ago right back to about 50,000 years ago - about when modern humans were first entering Europe.
- 4.5 billion years determined with the radiocarbon method. Well... no. Equally impossible to date fossils to be "millions of years old"
For radiocarbon dating to be possible, the material must once have been part of a living organism. This means that things like stone, metal and pottery cannot usually be directly dated by this means unless there is some organic material embedded or left as a residue.
- Radiocarbon dating of stone? Well... no.
"Oldest stones nearest to the earth's core" (I'm humoring you and assuming that the Earth were a sphere and the innermost core is at 3,954 miles deep).
- Do we have actual samples from there?
Kola Superdeep Borehole's unmatched 7.5-mile depth. Started in 1970 by Russian scientists on the Kola Peninsula of Russia ultimately became the deepest hole in the world
- It seems that we don't have any Earth core samples. Would they be the oldest if we had them within the secular heresy?
Australia holds the oldest continental crust on Earth, researchers have confirmed, hills some 4.4 billion years old.
- Check your "data".
- Try to understand your "data".
- Provide some actual references unless you've made the discoveries yourself, in which case you might want to publish them in Nature.
I'm still hopeful. Let's see if you have some better evidence below!
Third: Creationist scientists? Yup, okay. And I would like to see this journal of theirs showing how they have proven Jesus to be our 'savior'. And what is spiritual healing next to the power of modern medical practices that have saved hundreds of millions of people? Sure, 'spiritual' healing can lower the stress of the patient somewhat, and in some cases it actually works. Although this is due to chi/ki, and not prayer like you claim.
- Of course they've covered the necessity of Jesus and His function as the Savior!
- The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
- The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
- I suppose you mean the Oriental concept of 氣 or qì. It is charming that you dismiss the Bible without educating yourself in it but embrace 氣 without, again, giving us evidence of its nature, detection, effects on organisms, and measurement. Without being able to provide tangible citations or evidence, you accept the Earth's apparent age of 4.5 billion years; in contrast to that, you accept the 氣 that has been dismissed by your secularist heroes, the medical professionals.
Even more elusive is the scientific basis of some of the key traditional Eastern medical concepts such as the circulation of Qi, the meridian system, and other related theories, which are difficult to reconcile with contemporary biomedical information
- Why are the secular scientists right when they mention the age of the Earth but why do you dismiss them when they disprove concepts that you like, such as 氣? You need to get familiar with the concepts of
- Confirmation bias - accepting and studying only information that supports your preconceptions.
- The difference between anecdotes and data.
OK, perhaps the evidence is in the last part of your post!
If there was a cure to cancer that didn't involve modern medical science, trust me, scientists would be all over it. Not everybody is healed ... Eventually, we will cure Aspergers, ... it is simply a mental disorder we currently are trying to figure out, ...
and it is people like you who are holding the progression of the human race back with utter nonsense that should be forgotten, dumped in the trash, left to rot, and be little more than a footnote in our history. In the face of overwhelming evidence, people like you still cling to outdated and false information to save face. It's sad, and I almost feel sorry for fools like you. Almost.
and it is people like you who are holding the progression of the human race back with utter nonsense that should be forgotten, dumped in the trash, left to rot, and be little more than a footnote in our history. In the face of overwhelming evidence, people like you still cling to outdated and false information to save face. It's sad, and I almost feel sorry for fools like you. Almost.
- Asperger's is (from the secular viewpoint) not simply a "mental" disorder but a biological one (no problem for us, as God can meddle with genetics very easily but a huge failure for your claim).
Detailed neuropsychological testing may support these findings providing information about the performances of individual right or left hemispheric brain regions. The first SPECT study in a patient with Asperger's Disorder was published by the host of this page and his colleagues, and found left parietooccipital hypoperfusion.
- The parietooccipital hypoperfusion means that on the left side of the brain, in the region of the gray matter on the top of the head and towards the neck, the brain does not receive as much blood as it should.
We cling to the Bible because people like you constantly fail to provide the evidence they claim to have. You disregard supernatural intervention when it comes to Jesus but cherish it when it comes to obscure Oriental mythology. You cherry-pick your science. Finally, you employ argumentative fallacies by concentrating not on the data but on the character of your opponent. A "fool" may still know the correct answer. It is the evidence that we should assess, not our opponents. This is called the ad hominem fallacy.
Being unbiased means that to study all sides of the argument before making a decision. We know our Bible and our secular science. You don't know the Bible and based on the material above, you do not know your science, either. It is no surprise that God was aware of this phenomenon.
Proverbs 15:14
The heart of him that hath understanding seeketh knowledge: but the mouth of fools feedeth on foolishness.
Yours in Christ,
Elmer
Jesus is watching you masturbate.
Comment