Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[AV1611VET]

And Spiderman lives in New York City.

Comparing Moses to Spider Man is like comparing Darwin to Magilla Gorilla.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Comparing Moses to Spider Man is like comparing Darwin to Magilla Gorilla.

Now be fair, the Noah's Ark story is not that silly. Hmm, I guess that it is.

 

[Edmond Smith]

There is no "change of kind" in evolution. So all you have done is to show your ignorance. Let's take you for example. You share a common ancestor with other apes, and you are still an ape. You share a common ancestor with other mammals, you are still a mammal. You share a common ancestor with other vertebrates. You are still a vertebrate. Creationists cannot even define "kind".

Again, with the childish insults. Are you a grown man or woman or a child. Insults don't help. Doesn't bother me, because I consider the source from which they come.
Yes, your right there is something common between us and the ape and mammals. (uh, saying we are mammals already shows we are vertebrates.) It means that we all have the same creator. And He knew what He was doing.

Whoa! You do not seem to realize that the difference between one bacteria and another can be greater than the difference between a cat and a dog. With such ignorance how can you argue against evolution?

You really don't get it do you. The more you insult, the more you show that your incorrect about your thinking. Because the only reason why people insult someone, is because they have not solid base to argue from. So, you figure insulting someone will make them angry and give up...Sorry not happening.

I didn't say that bacteria and dogs are the same...Please reread it again, slowly next time. Because there is a big difference between bacteria DNA and Dog DNA...

The nested hierarchy of your DNA and a chimpanzees DNA shows this. The fact that you share ERV's with other apes makes it a slam dunk.

Yep. It's a slam dunk that our creator God, is our common creator.

Plus

Human designers frequently reuse the same elements and features, albeit with modifications. Since all living things share the same world, it should be expected that there would be similarities in DNA as the organisms would have similar needs. Indeed, it would be quite surprising if every living thing had completely different sequences for each protein—especially ones that carried out the same function. Organisms that have highly similar functionality and physiological needs would be expected to have a degree of DNA similarity.
Because of this similarity, evolutionists have viewed the chimpanzee as “our closest living relative.” Most early comparative studies were carried out only on genes (such as the sequence of the cytochrome c protein), which constituted only a very tiny fraction of the roughly three billion DNA base pairs that comprise our genetic blueprint. Although the full human genome sequence has been available since 2001, the whole chimpanzee genome has not. Thus, much of the previous work was based on only a fraction of the total DNA.
I believe that God made Adam directly from the dust of the earth just as the Bible says in Genesis 2. Therefore, man and the apes have never had an ancestor in common. Assuming they did, for the sake of analyzing the argument, then 40 million separate mutation events would have had to take place and become fixed in the population in only 300,000 generations. This is an average of 133 mutations locked into the genome every generation. Locking in such a staggering number of mutations in a relatively small number of generations is a problem referred to as “Haldane’s dilemma

You mean there is no evidence of God, that makes your later claim dubious to say the least.

Nope, I mean, the Earth, trees, cows, horses, man, DNA....created, by the creator God.

What do you mean? Ice floats, it is a simple fact. That alone debunks the idea of a worldwide flood.

Yeah, your right, Ice floats....Even during floods.

Yes, but that still leaves you with the moral problem of your God's punishment.

I don't have any moral problems with God's punishment, you do.
I believe it to be right. He's an Eternal God, who sent His Son to die for us, so that we might be Saved. But many of us, shake our tiny little fist up at Him telling Him I'm going live the way I want to. And they do and then die in their sins.
Remember, when you sin, it isn't horizontal, it's vertical, you sin directly against God.
He hates sin, because it separates us from Him. He's always wanted us to be with HIm.

Wrong. You cannot be "just and righteous" if you give an infinite punishment for a limited crime. It does not matter if I understand God or not. I understand justice and righteousness. It is not my fault if your description of your version of God is one that is neither just nor righteous.

Tell me, what's a limited crime?
it's not my description of God. It's His description of Himself.

Sorry, but this is not your knowledge since you can't demonstrate it. You are left with beliefs.

The answer I gave you, was to your statement from early post.

That is the same reason a Hindu or a Muslim will give you. That means that in essence your beliefs are no different from theirs. And faith is a flaw, it is not an asset.

Hindu, have faith....it's just put in the wrong direction.
Muslim, also have faith in their false god allah

Faith is a flaw?
You know it takes faith, to go to the grocery store.
You don't know if you'll get up in the morning...you have faith that you will.
When you get in your car...you don't know if that car will start...it takes faith
You don't know if you'll killed or injured in a car accident before you get to the store....and coming back home
that takes faith.
If you didn't have faith, you wouldn't be able to function.
If your married, then it takes faith to believe that your wife or husband is being truthful to you and faithful.

So, saying that faith is a flaw....shows just how much you don't really know.

No, you simply won't let yourself understand. Usually when creationists claim "speculation" it is only science that the creationist does not understand. And no, there is no choice in rational belief. If you think that choice is part of belief then you really don't believe. You merely hope.

No choice in rational belief? Sure there is.
You choose to believe or you don't choose to believe, quite simple really.
That's funny for you to say that "If you think that choice is part of belief then you really don't believe."
Yet you believe that evolution is real, yet there are so many choices made in evolution to make final decision on whether or not something is evolutionary. So you only hope it's right......that's called Faith.


I understand perfectly. Speculation means a process of consideration...and in that process depends on what information you get to tell whether something is true or not. If the evidence shown is sketchy, guessed, surmise, or just not quite there. Then the conclusion to the speculation, is there's something missing and therefore can be wrong.
If the evidence is solid, shown factual and truthful, therefore the speculation is right.

You need to understand the difference between speculation and logical conclusion.

Here is a logical conclusion, you've probably seen this before, please speculate on this.

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Logic is my most favorite thing. It's easy, clean and efficient. That's why evolution fails so miserably.

 

[ScottA]

I did not believe your answers because they required me to ignore my own common sense. I will change my position based on EVIDENCE, and you have not provided me with any.

I don't get to sway you. The evidence you seek is all around you. But if you only look as far as what your eyes see, then you will be fooled by the facade...which is intentional, to confound those who have no interest in seeing an unseen God. If that is you...then the [natural] seen world is it for you, life remains purely organic, and when the body dies so does the natural spirit.

I, as millions of witnesses down through all of history, can only convey the information. As for believing and evidence...that is on you. All the best to you.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Comparing Moses to Spider Man is like comparing Darwin to Magilla Gorilla.

How so?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I don't get to sway you. The evidence you seek is all around you. But if you only look as far as what your eyes see, then you will be fooled by the facade...which is intentional, to confound those who have no interest in seeing an unseen God. If that is you...then the [natural] seen world is it for you, life remains purely organic, and when the body dies so does the natural spirit.

I, as millions of witnesses down through all of history, can only convey the information. As for believing and evidence...that is on you. All the best to you.

If God has gone through the trouble of hiding it from us, how can we mere mortals ever hope to outsmart Him as you have?

 

[ScottA]

Non sequiturs often are when you try to justify them.

The line of logic runs down through all of recorded history. We do not try to justify it, but to share it and speak of it as the unseen facts that have been made known to us. The view over the horizon has not been seen by all, but we who have seen, have a voice that is as consistent as the times allow.

Woah, hold on.

You CLAIM I hold the invitation, yet I have no proof of this. I have only your word and an old book to tell me of this. If God wants me to know for a fact, surely he can do so. Your word is not enough to convince me. You'll need to provide EVIDENCE.

Until then, all you have is a claim that if I choose to believe, I'll justify that belief. No surprises there, because people tend to go out of their way to justify the beliefs that are comfortable. All you are doing me is telling me that if I convince myself, I'll go out of my way to justify it. But that won't make it true.

You have heard our witness. "We" have no need to provide evidence for what we "know", nor could we provide you with what must be seen, unless you yourself go. The natural-world example was discovering the "new" world. Some went, and some stayed and made foolish demands from the shore. The invitation is to stay, or to go. If you stay, it is our witness that life is simply organic and ends at natural death. It is also our witness that if you choose to go, then life does not end at natural death. You have nothing to loose. But not having seen, the door [of invitation] is open, and the choice is yours.

I apologize if that all sounds arrogant to you, but it is no more arrogant than us going to see a movie and you deciding not to go. We wouldn't need to prove anything to you, nor could we. You either go, or you don't. The only other thing we could do is buy your ticket for you...and we have.

 

[ScottA]

If God has gone through the trouble of hiding it from us, how can we mere mortals ever hope to outsmart Him as you have?

It is not a contest of wit. It is a decision to take Him up on His invitation to add eternal life to your natural life. Your choice.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is not a contest of wit. It is a decision to take Him up on His invitation to at eternal life to your natural life. Your choice.

The problem is that we only ever see humans making that offer.

 

[HitchSlap]

Again, with the childish insults. Are you a grown man or woman or a child. Insults don't help. Doesn't bother me, because I consider the source from which they come.
Yes, your right there is something common between us and the ape and mammals. (uh, saying we are mammals already shows we are vertebrates.) It means that we all have the same creator. And He knew what He was doing.




You really don't get it do you. The more you insult, the more you show that your incorrect about your thinking. Because the only reason why people insult someone, is because they have not solid base to argue from. So, you figure insulting someone will make them angry and give up...Sorry not happening.

I didn't say that bacteria and dogs are the same...Please reread it again, slowly next time. Because there is a big difference between bacteria DNA and Dog DNA...



Yep. It's a slam dunk that our creator God, is our common creator.

Plus

Human designers frequently reuse the same elements and features, albeit with modifications. Since all living things share the same world, it should be expected that there would be similarities in DNA as the organisms would have similar needs. Indeed, it would be quite surprising if every living thing had completely different sequences for each protein—especially ones that carried out the same function. Organisms that have highly similar functionality and physiological needs would be expected to have a degree of DNA similarity.
Because of this similarity, evolutionists have viewed the chimpanzee as “our closest living relative.” Most early comparative studies were carried out only on genes (such as the sequence of the cytochrome c protein), which constituted only a very tiny fraction of the roughly three billion DNA base pairs that comprise our genetic blueprint. Although the full human genome sequence has been available since 2001, the whole chimpanzee genome has not. Thus, much of the previous work was based on only a fraction of the total DNA.
I believe that God made Adam directly from the dust of the earth just as the Bible says in Genesis 2. Therefore, man and the apes have never had an ancestor in common. Assuming they did, for the sake of analyzing the argument, then 40 million separate mutation events would have had to take place and become fixed in the population in only 300,000 generations. This is an average of 133 mutations locked into the genome every generation. Locking in such a staggering number of mutations in a relatively small number of generations is a problem referred to as “Haldane’s dilemma




Nope, I mean, the Earth, trees, cows, horses, man, DNA....created, by the creator God.





Yeah, your right, Ice floats....Even during floods.



I don't have any moral problems with God's punishment, you do.
I believe it to be right. He's an Eternal God, who sent His Son to die for us, so that we might be Saved. But many of us, shake our tiny little fist up at Him telling Him I'm going live the way I want to. And they do and then die in their sins.
Remember, when you sin, it isn't horizontal, it's vertical, you sin directly against God.
He hates sin, because it separates us from Him. He's always wanted us to be with HIm.




Tell me, what's a limited crime?
it's not my description of God. It's His description of Himself.




The answer I gave you, was to your statement from early post.




Hindu, have faith....it's just put in the wrong direction.
Muslim, also have faith in their false god allah

Faith is a flaw?
You know it takes faith, to go to the grocery store.
You don't know if you'll get up in the morning...you have faith that you will.
When you get in your car...you don't know if that car will start...it takes faith
You don't know if you'll killed or injured in a car accident before you get to the store....and coming back home
that takes faith.
If you didn't have faith, you wouldn't be able to function.
If your married, then it takes faith to believe that your wife or husband is being truthful to you and faithful.

So, saying that faith is a flaw....shows just how much you don't really know.



No choice in rational belief? Sure there is.
You choose to believe or you don't choose to believe, quite simple really.
That's funny for you to say that "If you think that choice is part of belief then you really don't believe."
Yet you believe that evolution is real, yet there are so many choices made in evolution to make final decision on whether or not something is evolutionary. So you only hope it's right......that's called Faith.


I understand perfectly. Speculation means a process of consideration...and in that process depends on what information you get to tell whether something is true or not. If the evidence shown is sketchy, guessed, surmise, or just not quite there. Then the conclusion to the speculation, is there's something missing and therefore can be wrong.
If the evidence is solid, shown factual and truthful, therefore the speculation is right.





Here is a logical conclusion, you've probably seen this before, please speculate on this.

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Logic is my most favorite thing. It's easy, clean and efficient. That's why evolution fails so miserably.

For someone like me, who doesn't accept supernatural explanations, what's the point of accepting what cdesign proponentsists claim? ToE is the best explanation for the biodiversity and biodistribution of life on this planet. ToE is used by universities the world over, is robust a theory as they come, and hasn't been falsified. So other than for reasons of religion, how does creationism/ID add to our understanding of the natural world?

 

[Hoghead1]

Can't say as I agree, Edmond. I don't think of God as a punishing God. God is a loving God; and when you love someone, you do not coerce them with threats of pain and horrible punishment. And I certainly do not think of God as a cosmic dictator, then, who has to have it all his own way or else. God respects our decisions. A truly loving parent would respect the decisions of his or her offsprings, even if they did in some ways disagreed with what that parent wanted them to do.
You seem to follow the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement. I disagree with that theory,. It did not become popular until the Middle Ages; it is based on the notion that someone has to take the punishment the prince deserved, in order to protect the prince. I do not consider that justice. I also consider this theory contradictory, in that it claims God wants to forgive, but can do so only if someone is punished. Well, at a minimum, forgiveness means remission of punishment. There are other theories of the atonement. There are other options and theories of teh atonement that I feel hold more profit.
You seem to insist, on one hand, it is beneath human dignity for us to have come from an ancestor common to ourselves and apes, and then you say we came or evolved from dust. How is it more to our dignity and the dignity of God that we came from mere dust than from some sort organism?
You also seem to assume that all animals have common characteristics simply because the same creator created them. However, if God is continually creative, and I assume God is, then God is continually coming up with brand-new ideas. Each time God creates, God is a different creator. So, no, I don't see how God can remain the same. Furthermore, any true creative act always entails a significant modification of preexisting material. hence, the reason why there are both major differences and similarities between ourselves and other organisms is that God is continually creative, continually ushering in the new out of the old.

 

[Loudmouth]

For someone like me, who doesn't accept supernatural explanations, what's the point of accepting what cdesign proponentsists claim? ToE is the best explanation for the biodiversity and biodistribution of life on this planet. ToE is used by universities the world over, is robust a theory as they come, and hasn't been falsified. So other than for reasons of religion, how does creationism/ID add to our understanding of the natural world?

Precisely. This is the type of question I have been asking creationists for a long time. For example, in this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/can-creationism-interpret-evidence.7917408/

It was a pretty simple question. If the sequence difference between a mouse and human gene is 90%, and the difference between that same sequence for humans and chickens is 80%, what would the difference be between mouse and chicken? Creationists couldn't answer that question, even though you can use evolution to make predictions on what that percentage difference should be.

Creationism can't do the things that evolution can do in biology. Period. That's why scientists don't use it.

 

[Davian]

It is not a contest of wit. It is a decision to take Him up on His invitation to at eternal life to your natural life. Your choice.

Belief is not a conscious choice. I have not seen compelling evidence that this "invitation" that you allude to is anything more than something imagined.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, with the childish insults. Are you a grown man or woman or a child. Insults don't help. Doesn't bother me, because I consider the source from which they come.
Yes, your right there is something common between us and the ape and mammals. (uh, saying we are mammals already shows we are vertebrates.) It means that we all have the same creator. And He knew what He was doing.

What childish insults? Those are all accurate descriptions. And yes, mammal tells you that you are a vertebrate, verterbrates are a larger group. As you go back further and further in time the size of the group that describes you has to get larger and larger. Just as the each of these groups are keep growing in number:

You, the descendants of your father, the descendants of your grandfather, the descendants of your great grandfather (lets' make them all the direct male line for ease).

You really don't get it do you. The more you insult, the more you show that your incorrect about your thinking. Because the only reason why people insult someone, is because they have not solid base to argue from. So, you figure insulting someone will make them angry and give up...Sorry not happening.

I didn't say that bacteria and dogs are the same...Please reread it again, slowly next time. Because there is a big difference between bacteria DNA and Dog DNA...

Don't complain about being insulted when you made rather a rather foolish statement, and you have blown this up when I told you if you want answers that you should ask questions one at a time politely. You are both rude and wrong, that is a very bad combination. I am merely rude at times. Rude but correct when dealing with the ignorant is understandable. But here is what you said:

"Evolution isn't demonstrable. Show me just one Instance of one kind changing to another kind.
I agree in microevolution...where one bacteria changes and becomes another type of bacteria and how there are different types of dogs, cats and such.
But man from ape? show me the evidence of this, the fossil record of it, the observable demonstrative evidence for this."

Since you used a worthless and undefined term your complaint has no merit. I already explained to you how there is no "change of kind" in evolution. Until you come up with a working definition of "kind" I will use a working one. I make it synonymous to "clade"

Yep. It's a slam dunk that our creator God, is our common creator.

Now see this is the ignorant and unsupported sort of claim on your part that earns you ridicule. You have no reliable evidence to support the existence of your God, I have reliable evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

Plus

Human designers frequently reuse the same elements and features, albeit with modifications. Since all living things share the same world, it should be expected that there would be similarities in DNA as the organisms would have similar needs. Indeed, it would be quite surprising if every living thing had completely different sequences for each protein—especially ones that carried out the same function. Organisms that have highly similar functionality and physiological needs would be expected to have a degree of DNA similarity.
Because of this similarity, evolutionists have viewed the chimpanzee as “our closest living relative.” Most early comparative studies were carried out only on genes (such as the sequence of the cytochrome c protein), which constituted only a very tiny fraction of the roughly three billion DNA base pairs that comprise our genetic blueprint. Although the full human genome sequence has been available since 2001, the whole chimpanzee genome has not. Thus, much of the previous work was based on only a fraction of the total DNA.

The problem with this is that you run into many inefficiencies and imperfections because of how evolution works. Evolution is not based upon "perfect" or even "good". Evolution is based upon "good enough". You would have to go back and change your creation story because life is not "good". It is barely "good enough".

I believe that God made Adam directly from the dust of the earth just as the Bible says in Genesis 2. Therefore, man and the apes have never had an ancestor in common. Assuming they did, for the sake of analyzing the argument, then 40 million separate mutation events would have had to take place and become fixed in the population in only 300,000 generations. This is an average of 133 mutations locked into the genome every generation. Locking in such a staggering number of mutations in a relatively small number of generations is a problem referred to as “Haldane’s dilemma

And you are wrong. And "Haldane's dilemma" does not exist. It was in an earlier work of Haldane's and he could see that he had an error in it himself. It was later shown not to be a problem. It looks like you have heard of John Sanford, his genetic entropy was refuted before it was even published due to his dishonesty.

Nope, I mean, the Earth, trees, cows, horses, man, DNA....created, by the creator God.

Since there is no reliable evidence of your God or supporting the creation of life by a creator you simply confirmed my claim. You need to learn the concept of scientific evidence. I can help you with that.

Yeah, your right, Ice floats....Even during floods.

Very good. Ice floats, even during floods. So that means there was no flood of Noah.

I don't have any moral problems with God's punishment, you do.
I believe it to be right. He's an Eternal God, who sent His Son to die for us, so that we might be Saved. But many of us, shake our tiny little fist up at Him telling Him I'm going live the way I want to. And they do and then die in their sins.
Remember, when you sin, it isn't horizontal, it's vertical, you sin directly against God.
He hates sin, because it separates us from Him. He's always wanted us to be with HIm.

Once again your understanding is lacking. By your description of your God you called him unrighteous and unjust. Now you might think it is okay to have punishment more severe than the crime, but moral people do not share those beliefs. You belief in an immoral version of God. Not all Christians believe that. And now you have painted your God as a rather petty tyrant. It is all about him according to you. You keep making your God look worse and worse.

Tell me, what's a limited crime?
it's not my description of God. It's His description of Himself.

No, it is not God's description of himself. At best it is the description of God in the Bible. You keep making the same mistakes. You need to remember there are thousands of versions of the Christian God and yours may not be the right one, if there even is a "right one".

The answer I gave you, was to your statement from early post.

Yes, but you did not seem to understand the answer.

Hindu, have faith....it's just put in the wrong direction.
Muslim, also have faith in their false god allah

And you have the same problem that they do.

Faith is a flaw?
You know it takes faith, to go to the grocery store.
You don't know if you'll get up in the morning...you have faith that you will.
When you get in your car...you don't know if that car will start...it takes faith
You don't know if you'll killed or injured in a car accident before you get to the store....and coming back home
that takes faith.
If you didn't have faith, you wouldn't be able to function.
If your married, then it takes faith to believe that your wife or husband is being truthful to you and faithful.

So, saying that faith is a flaw....shows just how much you don't really know.

Nope, now you are making equivocation errors at best. "Faith" is what Thomas lacked. Supposedly Jesus wanted people to believe without evidence. That is faith. None of the items on your list used that sort of faith. Those were all beliefs based upon past actions. No faith required.

No choice in rational belief? Sure there is.
You choose to believe or you don't choose to believe, quite simple really.
That's funny for you to say that "If you think that choice is part of belief then you really don't believe."
Yet you believe that evolution is real, yet there are so many choices made in evolution to make final decision on whether or not something is evolutionary. So you only hope it's right......that's called Faith.

No, sorry you are of course wrong again. Can you choose to believe that you can fly by flapping your arms? Can you choose to believe in Zeus? I would hope not. And no, there is no choice in believing the theory of evolution. The evidence for it is endless. You may be conflating with people trying to figure out exactly which path evolution took, but even that is not a choice if your beliefs are supported by evidence.

I understand perfectly. Speculation means a process of consideration...and in that process depends on what information you get to tell whether something is true or not. If the evidence shown is sketchy, guessed, surmise, or just not quite there. Then the conclusion to the speculation, is there's something missing and therefore can be wrong.
If the evidence is solid, shown factual and truthful, therefore the speculation is right.

Then you either do not understand "speculation" or you are misapplying it to the theory of evolution, since it is supported by literally mountains of evidence. Actually speculation is a very early part of the scientific process. One looks at data and evidence and tries to think what it means. When an idea is developed in this process it is a hypothesis. Once that hypothesis is confirmed through testing, as evolution has been confirmed time after time then it is no longer speculation. Speculation was part of the process, but the theory of evolution no longer is speculation because it has passed millions of tests.

Here is a logical conclusion, you've probably seen this before, please speculate on this.

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.

And you fail immediately. You need to look up "virtual particles"

(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Sorry, but this is just the failed Kalam argument. It is just another PRATT today since it has been refuted so many times.

Logic is my most favorite thing. It's easy, clean and efficient. That's why evolution fails so miserably.

No, you don't know how logic works, or else you are lying to yourself. There is nothing illogical about the concept of evolution. You can't even begin to refute it. All you can do is to pull PRATT after PRATT. Again, if you don't like being ridiculed then don't make ridiculous arguments. Ask your questions one at a time and politely and people here will help you.

 

[HitchSlap]

Precisely. This is the type of question I have been asking creationists for a long time. For example, in this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/can-creationism-interpret-evidence.7917408/

It was a pretty simple question. If the sequence difference between a mouse and human gene is 90%, and the difference between that same sequence for humans and chickens is 80%, what would the difference be between mouse and chicken? Creationists couldn't answer that question, even though you can use evolution to make predictions on what that percentage difference should be.

Creationism can't do the things that evolution can do in biology. Period. That's why scientists don't use it.

Right! It's the same PRATT's, and they never seem to care how the science of ToE actually works.

In fact, IMO, if cdesign proponentists would put forth just a little investigation into ToE, I predict they would be embarrassed that they ever accepted creationism, much less their vociferous support of it.

 

[ScottA]

The problem is that we only ever see humans making that offer.

The horizon is not humanity crying out for you to come see. Some come, some do not.

 

[HitchSlap]

The horizon is not humanity crying out for you to come see. Some come, some do not.

This is nonsensical.

 

[ScottA]

For someone like me, who doesn't accept supernatural explanations, what's the point of accepting what cdesign proponentsists claim? ToE is the best explanation for the biodiversity and biodistribution of life on this planet. ToE is used by universities the world over, is robust a theory as they come, and hasn't been falsified. So other than for reasons of religion, how does creationism/ID add to our understanding of the natural world?

It is an exercise in getting outside the fishbowl of life, to expand your horizon beyond the natural world. To do otherwise, is to accept that humanity is less than eternal and merely organic.

 

[ScottA]

This is nonsensical.

If you did not know there was something beyond to see, then yes, that would be true...but only to those who don't know. But that would mean that you have not been paying attention to the multitude of witnesses that have returned from over the horizon and told what they saw.

But, do not misunderstand, nobody is here to drag you over the hill...we're simply talking about our experience, an experience which, yes, is out of this world. It's really quite simple, like we went to a movie and you didn't. We have no need to prove anything to those who don't have enough interest to go see for themselves, nor could we...you either go, or you don't. The only other thing we could do is buy your ticket for you...and we have.

 

[Davian]

It is an exercise in getting outside the fishbowl of life, to expand your horizon beyond the natural world.

Is this an exercise in exploring reality, or one of self-deception?

To do otherwise, is to accept that humanity is less than eternal and merely organic.

Okay, if that is what the evidence demands.