No Greater Love -

[Subduction Zone]

Because we are not random creations. We were
made for a reason by a God who loves us.

Actually we are neither. Where did you get the idea that anyone thought that humans were "random creatures"? It sounds like someone sold you a stawman argument once again.

 

[Robert Palase]

You may consider yourself or other insects. I don't.

You may also consider yourself to be anything you want but unfortunately it changes nothing, you me and everything else are life forms that will one day cease to exist, it's nothing to worry about because we will be completely unaware that we do not exist.

 

[Robert Palase]

Because we are not random creations. We were
made for a reason by a God who loves us.

Is that the same God that made everything in this universe? why would he make insignificant specks like us? are you sure we didn't make the God to make ourselves feel important and to give some kind of meaning to our lives? that sounds closer to the truth.

 

[AV1611VET]

why would he make insignificant specks like us?

Is that what your parents are/were? your son/daughter? brother/sister? best friend?

 

[SteveB28]

This is the type of false comparison that makes
your side look bad. What do computers have to
do with evolution, other than scientists type on
computers too?

Computers are actually a nice example of how
real science is anti-evolution. It takes planning
and design to make computers, or anything else.
That means intelligence and a creator.

Well, for starters, the offending statement was "SCIENCE can take a hike", not just "evolutionary biology can take a hike", so the observation is relevant.

And "real" science? What is that please? The science that is compatible with your religious views?

 

[SteveB28]

"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty;"

There are plenty of apologetics sites that deal
with any argument you can dig up on an anti-bible
site. If you genuinely have a new one, though, I'll
take a look.

You do realise that it was MEN who wrote those words?

 

[SteveB28]

You can depend on God or you can depend on man. Sooner or later man will disappoint you and let you down. God is always faithful and true and He is always there for us.

Oh, really? When did he ever release his discovery of his cure for smallpox?

 

[SteveB28]

Nope. You are the one who refuses to see
or to look for him. He is right where he has
always been.

Yes, in the minds of some men.

 

[pat34lee]

Actually we are neither. Where did you get the idea that anyone thought that humans were "random creatures"? It sounds like someone sold you a stawman argument once again.

If we are the end result of a series of
natural events with no purpose, what
would you call it?

 

[pat34lee]

Oh, really? When did he ever release his discovery of his cure for smallpox?

In the beginning. It's in the genes.

 

[SteveB28]

In the beginning. It's in the genes.

So, when you say "he is always there for us", do you realise that the millions who died from smallpox, before Edward Jenner made his famous discovery, might strongly disagree? Where was he for those people? Would you prefer that Jenner had not done the work to arrive at a vaccine?

 

[SteveB28]

If we are the end result of a series of
natural events with no purpose, what
would you call it?

"Natural events with no purpose" does not equate with "random". Evolution is a NON-random process, but is entirely natural and has no conscious purpose.

 

[pat34lee]

No, it means that those sites can't refute my arguments. But they are good for a laugh or two sometimes. The desperation of some of them is hilarious.

Try one on here that you don't like the
answer anyone gives for it. Chances are
you still won't like the answer.

 

[pat34lee]

So, when you say "he is always there for us", do you realise that the millions who died from smallpox, before Edward Jenner made his famous discovery, might strongly disagree? Where was he for those people? Would you prefer that Jenner had not done the work to arrive at a vaccine?

I would prefer we were still perfect, but that is on
us, not God. And if we knew how to keep healthy,
we wouldn't need vaccines. Our bodies are capable
of dealing with any virus given the proper ammo.

 

[pat34lee]

"Natural events with no purpose" does not equate with "random". Evolution is a NON-random process, but is entirely natural and has no conscious purpose.

Evolution though, is one link of a very random
chain of circumstances in your theories. None
of which have any conscious purpose or design.
That would be so sad and empty, if it were true.

 

[Robert Palase]

Is that what your parents are/were? your son/daughter? brother/sister? best friend?

Yes.

We are specks living on a planet that is a speck in a galaxy that is a speck in the universe.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/gallery/galaxy-location.html

 

[pat34lee]

Well, for starters, the offending statement was "SCIENCE can take a hike", not just "evolutionary biology can take a hike", so the observation is relevant.
And "real" science? What is that please? The science that is compatible with your religious views?

My original reply mistook science for evolution science
in the post I responded to. I have no problem with real
science.

What is real science, and why can't evolution be it?
Glad you asked.

It also goes back to the much maligned scientific method.
Depending who is teaching, it has four to six steps.
One rather simplistic example is:
1. Observe
2. Hypothesize
3. Prediction
4. Test the prediction

Science is a wheel that always goes back to
step one with new predictions and hypotheses.

Problem. Can you observe evolution in action?
Much as scientists would love to say yes; NO.

Can we observe the past, and what happened?
Again, NO. We may make certain inferences
about the past, but never with 100% certaintly.

Given the last statement, even if we could show
evolution on every scale today, there is no way to
prove it ever happened, or if it did, that it did so
in any particular way.

One major point of true science is falsiability. The
TOE today has morphed into a theory of everything.
In attempting to explain all, it can no longer be
falsified, because it changes to fit any anomoly.
Oort cloud, dark matter, dark energy, and most recent:
Iron, a magic bullet for saving the age of dinosaurs.

DNA killed evolution. Science can accept that. Those
who follow the religion of evolution never will.

 

[Robert Palase]

Evolution though, is one link of a very random
chain of circumstances in your theories. None
of which have any conscious purpose or design.
That would be so sad and empty, if it were true.

Unbelievable.
Facts are not influenced by 'sad and empty', your 'sad and empty' will die with you and the fact will remain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If we are the end result of a series of
natural events with no purpose, what
would you call it?

Probably that. That does not make it random.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My original reply mistook science for evolution science
in the post I responded to. I have no problem with real
science.

What is real science, and why can't evolution be it?
Glad you asked.

It also goes back to the much maligned scientific method.
Depending who is teaching, it has four to six steps.
One rather simplistic example is:
1. Observe
2. Hypothesize
3. Prediction
4. Test the prediction

Science is a wheel that always goes back to
step one with new predictions and hypotheses.

Problem. Can you observe evolution in action?
Much as scientists would love to say yes; NO.

That claim is obviously wrong. Evolution can be and has been observed in many different ways. You may not understand how it was observed but that does not mean that it is not observed.

Can we observe the past, and what happened?
Again, NO. We may make certain inferences
about the past, but never with 100% certaintly.

Wrong again. In fact since the speed of light is not instantaneous, nor is the reaction time in our brains themselves everything that we observe is in the past. Again, just because you don't understand how we observe the past does not mean that it cannot happen. And mistake number two. Even what you observe with your eyes on events in front of you you cannot observe with 100% certainty.

Given the last statement, even if we could show
evolution on every scale today, there is no way to
prove it ever happened, or if it did, that it did so
in any particular way.

And now you have shown that you are not even qualified to badmouth science at all. Nothing in science is "proven". Science is evidence based. Proofs are for math. I am sure that you have been told this and even shown that science does not prove anything many times. Why do you keep making the same mistakes?

One major point of true science is falsiability. The
TOE today has morphed into a theory of everything.
In attempting to explain all, it can no longer be
falsified, because it changes to fit any anomoly.
Oort cloud, dark matter, dark energy, and most recent:
Iron, a magic bullet for saving the age of dinosaurs.

No, now you are talking about rather ignorant creationists. Scientists know that most of what you are nattering about is not evolution. Those are realms of other science. Of course if a science is correct then it should work well with other sciences. It seems that you are complaining that the theory of evolution is too correct. In other words you just contradicted this whole post of yours.

DNA killed evolution. Science can accept that. Those
who follow the religion of evolution never will.

You have to be kidding me. If anything DNA killed creationism. Only the totally ignorant follow the myth of creationism today.