Syrian rebels executed a 14-year-old boy

[Tunnelcat]

You say we have more information, and that's largely true, but what's the difference between information you don't actually understand now, and popular superstition then? I don't see a practical difference. People still accept it for the same reasons, whether they're closer to the truth or not. I don't happen to believe that they have the age of the earth right.

ST, they didn't know about germs or viruses, or mental illnesses. All that was explained as either punishments from God for misdeeds or evil possessions. People were outcast, tortured, burned at the stake or executed outright for things they had no control over. People thought that a male's sperm contained a small human being, or homunculus, and that all the woman contributed to the process was carry it to term. Not exactly accurate, is it? I call that very superstitious and uninformed. Most people and especially the church, thought that the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was at the center of universe. We now know that to be false. Heck, they even thought the earth was as flat as a pancake. If all that lack of knowledge can be called into question, so can a lot of other assumptions and thoughts from any Biblical writers in the past. Just sayin'.

Yea…the age of the earth is likely to be off by a few million years or so…

Uh, try 4.54 BILLION years old.

[Spidey]

I see that went over your head.

[flip]

Well, honestly TC, there is nowhere in the Bible that tries to date the Earth. Some people have tried to date the Earth by using the Bible but it's just not there. The interesting thing to me is that the Sun and the Earth are exactly the same age. That means that as soon as the Sun formed, the Earth formed almost immediately after. That was why I point towards atomic particles and electromagnetic energy. The Earth could have formed in 7 literal days, IF, there was an all powerful, intelligent being with the ability to combine these particles into form and function. It IS entirely possible, but it doesn't necessarily mean He wouldn't take his time either. There is some question in my mind towards radioactive dating, only because there was no prior data from before the atom was split, releasing radioactive particles back into atmosphere. That was my main contention over Neptunium, I still see the amount of time from when Uranium was discovered and Neptunium discovered in nature as a huge discrepancy. I think it could very well point to how when atoms are smashed into sub-atomic particles, they find another, hospitable place to bind. Probably pretty quickly too. It's the spooky action at a distance that I think is the real key to how everything formed, but without any data prior to restarting some of these processes, it's impossible to compare.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Dating the earth may not be there, but if you calculate the ages from the Bible's genealogies back to Adam, since we know how long ago Jesus lived, you come up right around 6000 years to present, if memory serves (my brother did it once).

[flip]

Yeah, a particles half-life is just the measure of time from existence on it's own until it changes form.

Now that's true Thorne. Even the invention of the Phoenician alphabet seems to support that. Many other things that I'm too lazy to write right now

EDIT: One thing to consider though, aside from the scientific fact that we all descend from a single pair, is the amount of time Adam was alone, and then the amount of time before Adam and Eve sinned. There is no way to account for that, but the fact we descend from a pair stands. Now, our data up to this point suggests that our common male and female ancestors existed many years apart, but they also use that same data to support a mass extinction of man. Considering how mitochondrial dna in females and Y-chromosomes in males are passed. I think it's fair to say we all descended from a single pair, but cannot trace back the male to the very beginning.

[Top Gun]

Dating the earth may not be there, but if you calculate the ages from the Bible's genealogies back to Adam, since we know how long ago Jesus lived, you come up right around 6000 years to present, if memory serves (my brother did it once).

Which is blatantly incorrect, and a perfect example of why attempting to use the Bible as a science textbook just makes one look foolish.

[flip]

given those discrepancies I stated above, 6000 could not be correct. I know as soon as man learned language, it wouldn't be long before they would want to write, man as we know him anyways. The Bible is not a science book, but all of it's principles are sound and point in a right direction. Everything is light, in one form or another. I'd be interested if anyone could find something that is not sound in principle.

Edit: Better?

[callmeslick]

you're NOT SURE if 6000 years is incorrect? It's beyond incorrect, it's off by a factor of hundreds of thousands......What TG said about the bible and science. It was written in a time with rudimentary knowledge of nature and science, and by people who couldn't grasp the concepts that are now universally understood to be true.

[Sergeant Thorne]

You forgot to add that its claims are 100% false. That is the end of your line of thinking. Just to help you short-sighted folks out with that. As long as there is continuity, it is all or nothing, but most people will never understand that. It is claimed to be the inspired word of God penned by men. If you still accept certain portions then you're evidently ignorant or a hypocrite.

[flip]

The origin of language in the human species has been the topic of scholarly discussions for several centuries. In spite of this, there is no consensus on its ultimate origin or age. One problem that makes the topic difficult to study is the lack of direct evidence. Consequently, scholars wishing to study the origins of language must draw inferences from other kinds of evidence such as the fossil record or from archaeological evidence, from contemporary language diversity, from studies of language acquisition, and from comparisons between human language and systems of communication existing among other animals, particularly other primates. It is generally agreed that the origins of language are closely tied to the origins of modern human behavior, but there is little agreement about the implications and directionality of this connection.

This shortage of empirical evidence has led many scholars to regard the entire topic as unsuitable for serious study. In 1866, the Linguistic Society of Paris went so far as to ban debates on the subject, a prohibition which remained influential across much of the western world until late in the twentieth century.[1] Today, there are numerous hypotheses about how, why, when, and where language might first have emerged.[2] It might seem that there is hardly more agreement today than there was a hundred years ago, when Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection provoked a rash of armchair speculations on the topic.[3] Since the early 1990s, however, a growing number of professional linguists, archaeologists, psychologists, anthropologists, and others have attempted to address with new methods what they are beginning to consider "the hardest problem in science"

[youtube]JksX4mN5H3w[/youtube] LOL!

[youtube]PLeWbA8hHao[/youtube]

[flip]

The first known examples of writing may have been unearthed at an archaeological dig in Pakistan.
So-called 'plant-like' and 'trident-shaped' markings have been found on fragments of pottery dating back 5500 years.

Dr Richard Meadow of Harvard University: "We may be able to follow the history of signs."
They were found at a site called Harappa in the region where the great Harappan or Indus civilisation flourished four and a half thousand years ago.

Harappa was originally a small settlement in 3500 BC but by 2600 BC it had developed into a major urban centre.

Harappa was occupied until about 1900 BC
The earliest known writing was etched onto jars before and after firing. Experts believe they may have indicated the contents of the jar or be signs associated with a deity.

According to Dr Richard Meadow of Harvard University, the director of the Harappa Archaeological Research Project, these primitive inscriptions found on pottery may pre-date all other known writing.

Last year it was suggested that the oldest writing might have come from Egypt.

Clay tablets containing primitive words were uncovered in southern Egypt at the tomb of a king named Scorpion.

They were carbon-dated to 3300-3200 BC. This is about the same time, or slightly earlier, to the primitive writing developed by the Sumerians of the Mesopotamian civilisation around 3100 BC.

[Top Gun]

You forgot to add that its claims are 100% false. That is the end of your line of thinking. Just to help you short-sighted folks out with that. As long as there is continuity, it is all or nothing, but most people will never understand that. It is claimed to be the inspired word of God penned by men. If you still accept certain portions then you're evidently ignorant or a hypocrite.

Anyone attempting to treat every single word of the Bible as literal historical truth is the truly ignorant one, because it was never intended to be such in the first place.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Says... where? If it looks like a historical account, it reads like a historical account, and it smells like a historical account... Even Jesus treated it as such.

[flip]

Beginning with the original 70 people, growth of the Israelite nation using our factors above would have been:

•140 people after 27 years
•280 people after 54 years
•560 people after 81 years
•1,120 people after 108 years
•2,240 people after 135 years
•4,480 people after 162 years
•8,960 people after 189 years
•17,920 people after 216 years
•35,840 people after 243 years
•71,680 people after 270 years
•143,360 people after 297 years
•286,720 people after 324 years
•573,440 people after 351 years
•1,146,880 people after 378 years
•2,293,760 people after 405 years

This is a rough estimate of how many Israelites left Egypt. Now, imagine the King of Egypt allowing a slave labor force of that many people to leave, and take all their possessions, including the kings gold, just because one man told them too.

Now imagine, 2,293,760 people all submitting to the Law and the Ten Commandments, all because one man told them to.

18 You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; 19 to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, 20 because they could not bear what was commanded: “If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned to death.”[c] 21 The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, “I am trembling with fear.”[d]

22 But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

25 See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven? 26 At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.”[

Those people were so terrified, they said they never wanted to hear from God again. Just tell Moses and we will do whatever he says to.

[snoopy]

you're NOT SURE if 6000 years is incorrect? It's beyond incorrect, it's off by a factor of hundreds of thousands......What TG said about the bible and science. It was written in a time with rudimentary knowledge of nature and science, and by people who couldn't grasp the concepts that are now universally understood to be true.

I think I've said things along these lines before, but it doesn't hurt to say them again.

1. I agree with you about the Bible not being a scientific book. I'd say that the root of TC's difficulties with the Bible is in trying to read it too scientifically (or legally) and not seeing it for the relational book that it is.

2. It's a fallacy to pretend that you're too logical or scientific to be able to believe in religion. Science has its own set of beliefs that are taken for granted, starting with the a-priori assumption that only natural phenomena exist. I'm not arguing that this assumption isn't necessary and appropriate to apply scientific method - but I'm pointing out that it's something that's taken by faith, and it's something that's often dogmatically clung to. When you get to origins/multiverse theories, you end up with theories that are accepted as true with little concrete supporting evidence, mostly on merit of the fact that they fit the (a-priori) model and have yet to be disproven; again this stinks of faith much more than it does of logic.

3. While knowing our history (natural and social) is important, people hang much more of their soul upon the matter of origins than merited simply on basis of learning from the past. I think it's an inescapable fact that our understanding of our origins has a profound effect upon the way that we build our social structures; in fact I'd say that it's the foundation upon which we build our social structures. As a result, human origins is much more than a scientific study, and everyone involved senses those higher stakes.

4. Let's not lose track of the fact that people of all walks can be cruel to other people. If we're going to judge religions and belief systems, lets do it on the merits of their key writings; not necessarily upon the actions of those who claim the name... since we all know that people don't tend to be all to good at doing what they preach.

[snoopy]

You forgot to add that its claims are 100% false. That is the end of your line of thinking. Just to help you short-sighted folks out with that. As long as there is continuity, it is all or nothing, but most people will never understand that. It is claimed to be the inspired word of God penned by men. If you still accept certain portions then you're evidently ignorant or a hypocrite.

Anyone attempting to treat every single word of the Bible as literal historical truth is the truly ignorant one, because it was never intended to be such in the first place.

You're right that the central focus of the Bible isn't history.

You're wrong if you claim that it doesn't have historical narratives. You're also wrong if you claim that it isn't one of the best historical records that we have of those time periods.

[Top Gun]

Of course there are sections of the Bible that were written as pure historical narrative...just as there were other sections of the Bible written as songs, poems, legal codices, allegories, letters, parables, and a number of other literary styles. These vary from book to book, and sometimes within the same book. But for someone to look at the structure and phrasing of a section like Genesis 1, and then claim that it was written as a literal scientific account of the creation of our solar system and the origins of life on this planet...that's completely absurd.

[Sergeant Thorne]

To go back a little to a previous post...

... EDIT: One thing to consider though, aside from the scientific fact that we all descend from a single pair, is the amount of time Adam was alone, and then the amount of time before Adam and Eve sinned. There is no way to account for that, but the fact we descend from a pair stands. ...

3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. 4 The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters. 5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.

[Jeff250]

It's a fallacy to pretend that you're too logical or scientific to be able to believe in religion. Science has its own set of beliefs that are taken for granted, starting with the a-priori assumption that only natural phenomena exist.

I don't think that's a necessary assumption (or maybe it just depends on how you define "natural"). Science is the study of that which is repeatable. So the assumption science really ever makes is that things are repeatable.

[Sergeant Thorne]

But for someone to look at the structure and phrasing of a section like Genesis 1, and then claim that it was written as a literal scientific account of the creation of our solar system and the origins of life on this planet...that's completely absurd.

What is it about the structure or phrasing that discounts a historical account?

2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

God rested on the 7th day, and his people rest on the 7th day.

[Sergeant Thorne]

It's a fallacy to pretend that you're too logical or scientific to be able to believe in religion. Science has its own set of beliefs that are taken for granted, starting with the a-priori assumption that only natural phenomena exist.

I don't think that's a necessary assumption (or maybe it just depends on how you define "natural"). Science is the study of that which is repeatable. So the assumption science really ever makes is that things are repeatable.

The universal definition of flip's "natural" is revealed by the universal definition of the alternative--"supernatural", and everyone knows that the scientific world shuns the supernatural as a rule. A supernatural explanation is not accepted in the scientific community. But what it really boils down to, if you believe the Bible, is that the whole world is rebellious toward God, and hostile toward anything of his. So you can say whatever you want of science as a theory, or even as a majority, and it doesn't change the fact that inconvenient occurrences in favor of the Bible, proven beyond coincidence, may be (and have been, from what I've heard) buried or disregarded.

[flip]

Yeah that's true Thorne, I actually remembered that the other day but decided to leave it alone for the time being, but is also the reason I posted about language and writing. It would seem to me that to start speaking, you first have to have an internal voice. Not long after you speak, you would need to express those words in written form. I have no problem believing the world formed in 7 literal days, especially considering the quantum world. Of course the Bible does not go into great detail, but the underlying facts are there. If you believe evolution as it is taught, you have to think about that first moment one individual spoke, and the first individual decided to put on a pair of pants, lol!. I find those things amusing myself. Being formed from the dust of the Earth leaves room for much exploration, as it is true, that is what we consist of, but taking into account the Cambrian Explosion, mass extinctions, moving continents and drastic changes in atmosphere, allows you to speculate exactly what 'dust' means. I think the defining moment is when humans gained consciousness, how exactly we were formed is not defined. But like I said, all the underlying principles are there. The Bible says God formed Adam from the dust of the Earth, that is exactly what we are, even a tomato is just dirt chemically rearranged. The first thing God said is "Let there be light" and everything we see is a form of light. Add in the fact that although it doesn't appear this way to us, everything is just an arrangement of 12 elementary particles, so the world coming together in 7 days is entirely possible in that context. Even Paul says that by faith Christians believe that everything that is seen was made from what is unseen. That's true too. It's all there the only thing that some lack is faith, and that my friend is not something you can give someone

[Duper]

But you see Flip, you've already made an "error". Not in the content, but the context. (yeah , here I go again with context.)

While you can try to read between the lines of Genesis and extrapolate scientific stuff, the writing is about WHO, not WHAT we are. We are made from the dust of the Earth (as you stated) showing our tie to this place, that we are a part of creation. We are ALSO made in God's image, not the image of the Earth. This shows a tie to the supernatural and that we are favored.
Genesis tells of who we are and how we relate to the God.

There's a lot more to this... but it's lunch and I'm hungry and I can barely type straight.

[Sergeant Thorne]

And who's reading between the lines?

[Tunnelcat]

Dating the earth may not be there, but if you calculate the ages from the Bible's genealogies back to Adam, since we know how long ago Jesus lived, you come up right around 6000 years to present, if memory serves (my brother did it once).

That leaves out the fossil evidence of primitive humanoids and Homo sapiens that were around well before 6000 years ago.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... sions.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... China.html

[Jeff250]

The universal definition of flip's "natural" is revealed by the universal definition of the alternative--"supernatural", and everyone knows that the scientific world shuns the supernatural as a rule. A supernatural explanation is not accepted in the scientific community.

There's no a priori reason for scientists to shun the supernatural, as long as it's repeatable. But in practice, many religions claim "don't test the Lord your God" and "God works in mysterious ways." So even by their own admission, we wouldn't expect the supernatural to be very repeatable.

[Duper]

And who's reading between the lines?

(God speaking to Abram)
"And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed."

I recommend that we change our policy towards Israel, which recently has been to throw her under the bus.

[flip]

Sure that part is true too Duper, but we live in a wonderful time. I was just pointing out that the underlying premises of the Bible do not contradict what we have discovered from physics either. The base principles are there.

As far as concerning exactly how man was formed, Darwin wrote this:

"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."

This seems to be supported by the fossil record to, as seen in the Cambrian layer and in fact even DNA supports a common ancestor to every living thing. We know from the fossil record, that after that initial explosion of diversity of life there has been mass extinctions that have wiped out about 98% of everything that has ever lived. Since the Bible itself says that one day with the LORD is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day, I think it is a mistake to try and think of the days in Genesis as being literal days as we know them. We know the Earth itself is older than 6000 years, and there is nothing in Genesis to contradict that either. It's more of a summary than anything else, but not contradictory. Genesis itself states that man was made on the sixth day and as Thorne pointed out, becomes specific as to the amount of days Adam lived thereafter. Now how Adam's physical body was formed from the dust of this Earth is vague enough to open up possibilities. Was it along the principles of how that initial basis of form kept changing as atmospheric changes occurred (this simple statement actually accounts for continent drift, atmospheric pressures.....strength of the magnetic field....temperatures...on and on) or done on a more personal level? I don't see any reason to discount either at this point. It's all made of the same dust. So, it should be pretty obvious the Earth is not 6000 years old and think it's a weak argument, from what we can physically observe.

On the other hand, Adam was made on the sixth day and became a living soul. Here we again see the time that man was made fully aware vaguely mentioned, but historical and archaeological evidence(again this statement encompasses a lot) seem to support the idea that man as we know him, a sentient being, has not been around all that long of a time. That is why I think more focus should be on man as a thinking, living soul, because to follow just his material existence and genetic makeup is misleading (ties can be made everywhere) as to what caused his very nature. I see no contradictions myself, just rash interpretations.

[flip]

A very interesting article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... -Eden.html

[Sergeant Thorne]

The universal definition of flip's "natural" is revealed by the universal definition of the alternative--"supernatural", and everyone knows that the scientific world shuns the supernatural as a rule. A supernatural explanation is not accepted in the scientific community.

There's no a priori reason for scientists to shun the supernatural, as long as it's repeatable. But in practice, many religions claim "don't test the Lord your God" and "God works in mysterious ways." So even by their own admission, we wouldn't expect the supernatural to be very repeatable.

Both quotes misunderstood, and mistakenly generalized across religions, I think. We are told to test the spirits, and we were created by a God that likes to give proofs. Jesus said in several places that he said or did something so that we could know that he was of God, or that what he said was true. I would say the reason that the supernatural is not testable is that we are the controlled environment--we are in the beaker, so to speak, and the supernatural is outside.

[Duper]

Flip, Darwin didn't believe in the flood or catastrophic tectonics. He died not knowing God. He's lost.

Look up Lothar's post on all this from about 5 years ago.

[flip]

I understand that Duper, doesn't mean he was wrong about everything though. The Cambrian layer does exist, it is observable.

[Tunnelcat]

Actually, there is evidence of catastrophic floods occurring at about the right time period and area. Darwin didn't know about it because he never saw the indications that scientists are just uncovering now.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... s-ago.html

[Jeff250]

Both quotes misunderstood, and mistakenly generalized across religions, I think. We are told to test the spirits, and we were created by a God that likes to give proofs. Jesus said in several places that he said or did something so that we could know that he was of God, or that what he said was true. I would say the reason that the supernatural is not testable is that we are the controlled environment--we are in the beaker, so to speak, and the supernatural is outside.

Consider a simple experiment where you have two groups of sick people, the experimental group whose recovery you have a lot of people pray for and the control group whose recovery you have no one pray for. This experiment has been often repeated, but typically prayer is found to have no measurable effect on recovery. So from that you can either conclude that prayer has no measurable effect on recovery, or you have to come up with an explanation as to why the efficacy of prayer isn't measurable by this experiment.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Consider a simple experiment where you have two groups of sick people, the experimental group whose recovery you have a lot of people pray for and the control group whose recovery you have no one pray for. This experiment has been often repeated, but typically prayer is found to have no measurable effect on recovery. So from that you can either conclude that prayer has no measurable effect on recovery, or you have to come up with an explanation as to why the efficacy of prayer isn't measurable by this experiment.

Let's make that clearer, pretending (sarcasm) that there is a person on each side of the equation. Say we were to do an experiment to see which group gets a raise from their boss, in order to test the efficacy of asking for a raise (mind you, you don't get to know anything about the performance of the employees, or whether or why they have been turned down in the past, or what they currently make, or whether they just got a raise yesterday, or whether they even work for this boss, etc, etc). One group will not ask, and the other group will. Now is asking for a raise an effective means of making more money or not? What? It's a "simple experiment"! For your consideration, my example is the less ridiculous of the two. This is science, right?

[Top Gun]

To go back a little to a previous post...

... EDIT: One thing to consider though, aside from the scientific fact that we all descend from a single pair, is the amount of time Adam was alone, and then the amount of time before Adam and Eve sinned. There is no way to account for that, but the fact we descend from a pair stands. ...

Flip is a bit muddled about the concepts of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam, the most recent common ancestors of modern humans on the female and male sides respectively. These individuals represent the most recent points to which every living human can trace their ancestry, the ancient humans whose ancestral lines have survived until today. However, these weren't two individuals who had the entire planet to themselves: they were just the members of their groups whose descendants lucked out. There's also no reason for Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam to have even existed at the same time; the most common thought places them probably a couple hundred thousand years apart from each other.

But for someone to look at the structure and phrasing of a section like Genesis 1, and then claim that it was written as a literal scientific account of the creation of our solar system and the origins of life on this planet...that's completely absurd.

What is it about the structure or phrasing that discounts a historical account?

It's the simple fact that the literary structure of these passages helps convey their original intended purpose, which in the case of something like Genesis 1 was not straight historic narrative. If you look at that chapter in literary terms, it's very much in the style of a classical myth. It's even poetic to a degree: you have each day of creation using the same line structure, with the exact same closing text acting as a refrain, and the differing seventh day serving the role of a coda. It's extremely different from portions of the Bible that do serve as direct historical narrative, and there's a fairly obvious reason for that: it's not.

[flip]

I never said that our most recent common ancestors had the planet to themselves, and I realize they lived at different times, as to these 2 we have traced. We are all traced back to these 2 individuals. The fact that they lived at different times is one of the reasons to support a mass extinction of man at one time, considering how mitochondrial dna passes from the mother and the Y-chromosome passes from the father. We cannot trace Y-chromosomal Adam back any further, because of that hiccup. My point is that following that line of logic, it is not hard to conceive of a single pair at the very beginning and again, that still only ties in mans material existence, we can also trace a connection through dna back to trees if we wanted to.

[Jeff250]

One group will not ask, and the other group will. Now is asking for a raise an effective means of making more money or not? What? It's a "simple experiment"! For your consideration, my example is the less ridiculous of the two. This is science, right?

What specifically is your concern? Is your concern that the experiment might consist entirely of people who don't deserve a raise or something?

[flip]

The effectiveness of prayer need not be approached in a scientific manner. Prayer is an inward line of communication between you and the creator. It is self-testable and repeatable. The Bible says that the spirit of man is the candle of the LORD, yesterday was a perfect example for me. I needed a new joystick, must be sidewinder , so as I and my wife are doing our business around town I get this unction to go check the Goodwill store. I walk the back aisle and find none. We are in there about 15 more minutes when in my spirit I hear, "go back, you really didn't look good enough." Sure enough, as I started peering behind things, there's my sidewinder precision pro! Prayer is a wonderful thing to me and has always been repeatable and testable .



It is simply a way for God to communicate with His children inwardly.

EDIT: Here's another example. We had just purchased a 2007 Altima SL. I was testing it out >: ). As we were traveling down 166 here, doing only about 70 miles an hour, I started to pass a line of vehicles traveling from the opposite direction. As soon as I passed the truck first in line, I heard in my spirit "yeah, and He's gonna get him too." I immediately slowed and sure enough, at the end of about 8-10 cars was CCSO . I wouldn't be so quick to discount the supernatural and spiritual side of man.

[Sergeant Thorne]

One group will not ask, and the other group will. Now is asking for a raise an effective means of making more money or not? What? It's a "simple experiment"! For your consideration, my example is the less ridiculous of the two. This is science, right?

What specifically is your concern? Is your concern that the experiment might consist entirely of people who don't deserve a raise or something?

My concern is that this experiment doesn't begin to get scientific. Prayer is not a supernatural power, it is communication with a supernatural person--God. You can't conduct experiments worth anything in ignorance of where humanity is in relation to God, of what God's requirements are, and above all what God's purpose is. Yet people would pull this stupid stuff and then look for excuses from me that supposedly indicate that I'm trying to spin a situation so that the assumed invalidity of my faith cannot be discovered. All you have to do is read the Bible and pay attention to what it says.

As far as the analogy goes, it's probably a lot more like 99% of the test group is on strike, and they're being represented to the boss by someone who works for a competing company.