I don't accept common descent. Doesn't seem logical, and I don't see the evidence as demonstrating it.
I must admit that I don't know yet what the right model is.
I must admit that I don't know yet what the right model is.
Upvote
0
Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
So the worthy one, since one can not have two masters, you divorce yourself from electronics because you have to have "faith" that the electrons will move like they should...
Wait, your using a computer... Argh you infedel!!! How can you have faith in two unseen things at one time?!?!
Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
So the worthy one, since one can not have two masters, you divorce yourself from electronics because you have to have "faith" that the electrons will move like they should...
Wait, your using a computer... Argh you infedel!!! How can you have faith in two unseen things at one time?!?!
Originally posted by npetreley
GASP!!! You're breathing! And God gave you the breath of life! You infidel! I insist that you stop breathing until you accept the fact that God gave you life, or else you're a big hypocrite.
Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
Well you see, I do accept that God gave me life, evolution and for that matter any other science isn't about denying God, just explaining how God did it by the evidence.
Originally posted by randman
I don't accept common descent. Doesn't seem logical, and I don't see the evidence as demonstrating it.
Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
Since Evolution requires faith in the unseen as he said, it is reasonable for us not to belive in it according to him.
Well electronics require faith in the unseen too. But we accept electronics and deny evolution baised on faith.
In that I find hypocrasy<sp?>. Physics can pose just as big of problems for Christianity as Biology, but no one argues against the theory of relativity, just the theory of evolution.
Originally posted by npetreley
If evolutionists would simply admit that their theory is based entirely on "what seems reasonable to me" and also admit that it could be entirely wrong, then perhaps it wouldn't be such an emotionally charged issue.
(See also, 1 Cor 5:7 -- "For we walk by faith, not by sight.")
Again, perhaps some of the "how" of electronics is unseen, but you can test your faith in how electronics work today to see if your theories are correct. But all that tells you is how electronics work today. It doesn't tell you anything about how the electron itself came to exist or how it came to behave the way it does today.
Originally posted by Jerry Smith
We can test our ideas about the past by looking at the marks it left behind for us to see in the present.
Originally posted by npetreley
I believe you've selected certain evidence, presented it to a jury with blinders on, and have consequently convicted the wrong guy.
Originally posted by npetreley
What you're really saying is that you can speculate based on the evidence. I have no problem with that. All I'm saying is:
1. Stop calling it fact. It's just speculation.
2. I believe you've selected certain evidence, presented it to a jury with blinders on, and have consequently convicted the wrong guy.
Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
*sigh* We have told you and the other creationists in here that time after time. THat is why evolution is called a theory not a law. How many times do we have to repeat it before you believe us? You see it is not a religion soley suported by faith but also backed by evidence. That is what science is, our best guess on how things work. Religion is our best guess on why things work i.e. God.
Originally posted by Jerry Smith
The speculation stage of evolutionary theory is only a distant memory. Fact is a status that it has earned.
Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
Religion is our best guess on why things work i.e. God.