I think if scientologists had any beliefs that didn't rely on faith, they could post em and support em, without havin ta denigrate theology as bein illogical. .
This thread was started by a creationist in order to denigrate science.
And rightfully so, cause science is lookin stoopid bein off by whatever billion years.
Assumin the *latest* "scientific" belief is accurate.
But all you got in defense of that stupidity is grade school retorts bout how aspects of theology don't jibe.
And that's no defense of the difference in faith "scientists" may have in the age of the universe.
No. We have various lines of evidence, with beliefs apportioned to the quality of various lines.
Where a theist may be required to believe something just because it's in their holy book, a skeptic is under no obligation to believe something just because it appears in a peer reviewed journal. The article sited in this thread is an interesting start to a new line of evidence, but by no means is it a new final word.
No faith required.
Last edited by antelope_sniper; 09/18/19.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
