Buzzard3 said:

No ... but science strongly suggests that life arising naturally from inanimate matter is impossible.

Click to expand...

That's very wrong. As time goes on, it becomes more and more clear that God was right when He said inanimate matter brought forth living things. Would you like to see how we know?

River Jordan said:

Does a geologist prove that the U-valley they're studying was formed by the natural process of glacial erosion?

Does a chemist prove that the molecule they're studying was formed by the natural process of covalent bonding?

Does a hydrogeomorphologist prove that the sand bar they're studying was formed by the natural processes of erosion and deposition?

Click to expand...

Yet more side-tracking.

River Jordan said:

If you can't give any reason why species came about differently in the past than they do today, all you're really doing here is complaining with no purpose.

Click to expand...

Okay, go with that one.

Postvieww said:

I’ll speak for myself. You should assume nothing about my beliefs. I didn't assuming anything about yours, I just said I wanted to understand them because of a comment you had made earlier. Not my intent to judge your beliefs , and I told you that. I did thank you for your response without critique.

Click to expand...

Then I apologize, but non MAGA Christians are experiencing quite a bit of that kind of thing these days. It is my understanding and experience that Dispensationalists reject or at least de-emphasize the Creeds and most of MAGA Christianity seems to be coming out of Dispensationalism.

Mutation and natural selection.

Buzzard3 said:

Easy to say but impossible to prove.

Click to expand...

Directly observed. Can't do much better than that. Would you like to learn about some examples?

Buzzard3 said:

How did "mutation and natural selection" allow mammals to (allegedly) descend from fish, for example?

Click to expand...

Sure. Some sorts of fish, including those still surviving, have the same bones as mammalian limb bones. Lungs actually evolved in fish before bladders, and in Rhipidestian fish, were used to breath air. There is an extensive fossil record, showing the transition from lobed fin fish to fish with limbs for walking on the bottom of shallow water, to fish that were capable of walking on land, to land-based tetrapods. It's one of the sequences that YEC Dr. Kurt Wise admits is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

One, and the surviving members of that group of fish are genetically closer to us than they are to other fish.

Lungfish (Dipnoi) are widely recognized as the closest living relatives of tetrapods (four-limbed vertebrates). This relationship is supported by both fossil evidence and molecular data. While coelacanths were previously considered strong contenders, recent studies increasingly favor lungfish as the sister group to tetrapods.

How about that? I'd be pleased to see your evidence that any step in the evolution of humans from fish could not have happened by mutation and natural selection. What do you have?

Buzzard3 said:

The truth is, you can't even demonstrate that such a transition was the result of a natural process,

Click to expand...

As Dr. Wise admits, the fossil record is very good evidence for it. And of course, DNA analysis shows that mutation and natural selection were indeed behind it, as does observed evolution we see today.

Love365 said:

Sounds better than UN Buffer Zone troops.

Click to expand...

The war would over if Russia was not so corrupt.

River Jordan said:

All scientific theories are based on natural processes. In fact all of science is based on natural processes. Given that, why focus on evolutionary theory instead of the atomic theory of matter for example?


Chemistry says molecules are the result of natural processes. Do you oppose chemistry too?

Click to expand...

You're getting side-tracked. I have no intention of following you.

cfposter said:

I don't think your are testing your own logic here. Consider Matthew 24:

Mat_24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

So if Jesus said "end was not yet" would you say that is the same thing as saying the date was in the future?

I tell you that that forbidding date setting is exactly what the devil wants. However, it is correct that we must always be READY for we will be judged not for just what we do tomorrow but for we did yesterday and today.

Click to expand...

cfposter said:

I don't think your are testing your own logic here. Consider Matthew 24:

Mat_24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

So if Jesus said "end was not yet" would you say that is the same thing as saying the date was in the future?

I tell you that that forbidding date setting is exactly what the devil wants. However, it is correct that we must always be READY for we will be judged not for just what we do tomorrow but for we did yesterday and today.

Click to expand...

I have astronomical evidence of a sign in the sky in September 2040. Specifically, on August 31 (22 Elul in the Hebrew calendar) a cross formed by the 5 visible planets will appear: Saturn, Jupiter, Venus, Mars and Mercury.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

Where have I heard similar prediction before?

Oh yea, I remember!

“Once Saddam Hussein is removed, Iraqis will greet Americans as a liberator”

How did that work out?

Click to expand...

I'm not figuring on liberating anyone. We aren't in the business of regime change.

If the Iranians want a different future they have to take it themselves, meaning they do have to want it.

Gregory Thompson said:

I'm more curious why they call it peacekeeping when there's no peace to keep.

Click to expand...

Sounds better than UN Buffer Zone troops.

public hermit said:

I don't think it's helpful to think of science as proving things similar to how there are proofs in mathematics.

Click to expand...

I'm aware of that. My point is, no one can prove that the history of life on earth is the result of a natural process.

public hermit said:

Here's a thought. If atheists have turned evolution into a religion (with which I disagree), could the same be said of some theists? Have some theists turned their anti-evolution sentiments into a religion, perhaps as an extension of their theism?

Click to expand...

Some theists reject evolution on religious grounds.
Some theists reject both evolution and the theory of evolution on religious grounds.

As for this theist,, I accept evolution but don't accept that the process responsible for evolution can be known.

Buzzard3 said:

A "majority of theists (including a majority of Christians)" accept that the history of life on earth is the result of a purely natural process described by the theory of evolution?

Really?

Click to expand...

Yes, really. Traditional Christians generally have no problem with it, as they have the theological basis to understand how that works--which was one of the babies thrown out with the bath water of the Reformation. Some of the Fathers wrote on the subject and Aquinas set it out definitelvely. See, we are all aware that striving to defend God's authorship of our being from "atheists" is a red herring. What you are really doing is promoting a literal and inerrant reading of Genesis. The truth is that nothing that science has discovered or in principle could discover in future can disprove the existence of a creator God.

DaveM said:

really does that mean the priest that were sexually abusing little boys, God entrusted them with have the authority to forgive sin,

Click to expand...

Yes, while the crimes you mention were and are heinous, the sinner still has the ability to effect the sacrament. This was settled during the Donatist controversy, well before Protestantism.

A New Dawn said:

ummm.................. All the leftist politicians and commentators. Same as when they suggested that the riots in 2020 were peaceful while there were pictures of buildings on fire in the background.

Click to expand...

They said “riots don’t exist”???

ozso said:

Haven't you heard? Riots don't exists. Whatever you think you've seen is either a figment of your imagination or a right-wing illusion.

Click to expand...

I think that’s just you guys trying to conflate these two words as being the same. Riots and protests are two different things. There are ongoing protests against the ICE raids. There is no riot happening. Two different things. Glad I could help clear things up.

Pommer said:

Iran is roughly the size of the western side of the United States’ portion of the continental divide, so they’d be the “David” to our “Goliath”.

Click to expand...

Yup, who chant death to America, who are the largest suppliers of weapons and finances to international terrorist groups, who have ICBM’s and were about to have nuclear weapons.

David was about to have the ability to use a 30megaton warhead against their enemies. And now they can’t.

That ain’t small rocks in a slingshot.

DaveM said:

all you Catholics who confess your sins to a Priest,,, who has been freed from the sin and born again?? we must repent, big difference between confession and repentance

Click to expand...

In all due respect, if that is how you view Confession, otherwise known as Reconciliation, then you don't understand what it is.

One must approach it with a contrite and repentant heart, with a will to repent and not do it again. Simply telling the priest doesn't absolve you of the sin, one must have a contrite heart.

Canuckster said:

"This is just the beginning," Bongino wrote in the post. "If you’re preying on children, we are coming for you."
MSN

Click to expand...

These poor children need our prayers indeed. This will change their lives forever.

BCP1928 said:

That's true of all of science. Scientists never know when they might come up with new evidence which knocks their theory [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-a-hoop. (which is one of the reasons scientists like their work.)

Click to expand...

I guess I should have said, "...renders their current theory untenable."

Pommer said:

I thought “wearing the ‘wrong clothes’” was some other culture‘s bugaboo.

Click to expand...

Which appears to be a bugaboo to you? So what.

public hermit said:

How would they be mutually exclusive?

Click to expand...

Abiogensis relates to the origin of life whereas evolution relates to what happened after abiogenesis. They're separate fields of study, so in that sense they're mutually exclusive.

Buzzard3 said:

My claim isn't "unsupported" - ask any scientist if he can prove that the theory of evolution describes the process responsible for producing the history of life on earth, and he will say "No".

He will also tell you that science doesn't prove things - it offers theories, not proofs.

Click to expand...

You ask a question that you know is nonsense and when someone notes that the question is nonsense, that's your support for your claim?

Buzzard3 said:

Ah yes ... the fossil record. For all we know, only a tiny fraction of the organisms that have ever existed are recorded in the fossil record, which means the true history of life on earth could be very very different to what fossils suggest.

Click to expand...

That's true of all of science. Scientists never know when they might come up with new evidence which knocks their theory [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-a-hoop. (which is one of the reasons scientists like their work.)

River Jordan said:

your unsupported claim

Click to expand...

My claim isn't "unsupported" - ask any scientist if he can prove that the theory of evolution describes the process responsible for producing the history of life on earth, and he will say "No".

He will also tell you that science doesn't prove things - it offers theories, not proofs.

Buzzard3 said:

Sorry, I'm not that gullible. No scientist can prove that the history of life on earth is the result of a natural process, so no scientist can prove that that process can be described by the theory of evolution.

I agree that ToE is the best scientific explanation for what produced the history of life on earth, but that doesn't mean it's the truth.

Click to expand...

You can't give a reason why anyone should go with your unsupported claims instead of the work of actual scientists. Okay.

If the ToE is the best scientific explanation, then you can't complain when scientists utilize it in their work. So I'm not sure what your point is now. Do you want scientists to do their work differently? If so, how?

Buzzard3 said:

So a human being is no more special than a rock?

Click to expand...

It depends who you are talking to And what definition of 'special' you are using. Ore containing plutonium is really special in terms of building a nuclear power plant. A random guy walking past said power plant? Not so much.