Badfish

Would you still feel that way about that scientist if his work was done and then shown to be consistent over a many number of years, carrying the same consistent data or message, and although might be controversial the data was never proven false? Or would you be more likely to accept it because it was written by a man of science?

Badfish

Only if it has to do with Jodi Foster or Contact.

Darth Dane

He did have an excuse. He had no knowledge of good and evil.
Mike decock

Yes he did! He´knew he wasn't to eat from the tree of knowledge, to eat was to be bad, it was not allowed, hence Adam KNEW that he was going against God's will, and God's will is good right? So Adams action was bad, as it was going against the wish of God.

Adam KNEW before eating form the tree of KNOWLEDGE.

So did Adam already eat of the tree or what?




DD - Love Spliff

keyser_soze

It's not fraud, in those instances where the one citing the bible actually believes it. It is simply flawed--circular reasoning

Asha'man

If a scientist has consistently proven that he does solid work, then I am likely to be less skeptical of his initial claims. If the scientific claim is dramatic or extraordinary, then I will still look for other confirming evidence.

However, the Bible has consistently proven that it is unreliable, contradictory, confusing, misleading, unhistorical, and subject to just about every possible interpretation there is. If someone uses the Bible as evidence, I am likely to be more skeptical of those claims. If someone uses the Bible as their only evidence, then their claims can probably be dismissed.

Starboy

The work of all scientists no matter how great is picked over routinely. You see when a religious person invents new religion they are at least excommunicated if not burned at the steak, when a scientist invents new science they get the Nobel Prize.

Starboy

Starboy

And many frauds think that way. The major difference is that if the fraud is religion based the government looks the other way.

Starboy

abe smith

What REALLY pisses me off is recent filler material in our only-paper-in-town, & it's just renamed *The Republican*..... The material in qy, ostensibly in praise of Martha Washington as "Mother of Our Country". to encourage "patriotism " in the young, for whose benefit the "youth page" is featured weekly, ... The stuff speaks of how hard Martha & George worked, such long hours! managing their "servants" to entertain numerous important guests and to produce on the Washingtons"s large "estate" all the necessary products & materials (not manufactured nor purchasable from stores, as such are now.)
No where, NOWHERE, in these encomia, is there any mention that the "SERVANTS" (whom Martha & George labored so long & tirelessly to superintend & direct) were the Washingtons's PROPERTY! their black SLAVES.
SLAVES! SLAVES! SLAVES! Those great & glorious holy Christian Godfearing Father & Mother of Our Great Christian Country KEPT SLAVES.
This newspaper's bland ignoring of the FACT OF SLAVERY makes me VOMIT. Is THIS what schoolchildren are being taught now? That our founding Fathers & Mothers made their fortunes of willing and paid well-cared-for "SERVANTS"?

SHIT!

yguy

For you, I guess it does.

yguy

Likely those slaves were better off under Washington than they were under the heel of the Africans who sold them into slavery to begin with.