Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

chad kincham said:

The New Testament was written by eyewitnesses.

Click to expand...

No, it wasn't. The gospels and Acts are, at best, 2nd hand accounts. Paul didn't witness anything before his claimed Damascus road experience. And Revelation was written by John who wasn't born during Jesus' lifetime.

driewerf said:

Why would it be oké to drive at 125 km/h when the speed limit is 120 km/h?
What divine rule do you break?

Click to expand...

"Remind the believers to submit to the government and its officers. They should be obedient, always ready to do what is good. Titus 3:1

"Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God." Romans 13:1

Bungle_Bear said:

Paul didn't witness anything before his claimed Damascus road experience.

Click to expand...

Where he met Jesus. That is an eyewitness account.

Speedwell said:

It's a sin if it is contrary to the known will of God.

Click to expand...

Everyone who isn't a believer Is bound under sin.
"For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all."

renniks said:

Everyone who isn't a believer Is bound under sin.
"For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all."

Click to expand...

I reject your church's authority to enforce it.

Hans Blaster said:

I reject your church's authority to enforce it.

Click to expand...

It's not the church that enforces it. God offers you mercy. If you don't accept, you are judged by him, not the church.

renniks said:

It's not the church that enforces it. God offers you mercy. If you don't accept, you are judged by him, not the church.

Click to expand...

In that case, I'm not concerned at all.

Would you like to go back to the creationism topic at hand instead?

Hans Blaster said:

In that case, I'm not concerned at all.

Would you like to go back to the creationism topic at hand instead?

Click to expand...

Sure. What do you want to learn?

renniks said:

Sure. What do you want to learn?

Click to expand...

What was you last non-"sin" post about? I looked back 3 pages and didn't feel like going back further.

Speedwell said:

Intelligent Design is a conjecture about biological life which rests on the assumption that the evolutionary process of variation and natural selection is not sufficient in all cases to produce the functional complexity which we observe in nature, that some biological structures would have required the intervention of an intelligent designer. ID does not treat of cosmology and just saying "God designed the universe" is not ID. ID is a specific proposal of the Discovery Institute of Seattle intended as a "wedge" (their language, not mine) to eventually force biblical creationism into public school science instruction alongside or even instead of biological evolution.

Click to expand...

Intelligent design is the recognition by many astrophysicists, astronomers, mathematicians, and others, that the 125 very narrow parameters involving the physics that the universe runs on, show evidence of the universe being designed, and not a chance occurrence.

chad kincham said:

Intelligent design is the recognition by many astrophysicists, astronomers, mathematicians, and others, that the 125 very narrow parameters involving the physics that the universe runs on, show evidence of the universe being designed, and not a chance occurrence.

Click to expand...

That's the so-called "fine tuning" argument, not ID. ID does not come from physics or astronomy, but biology and biochemistry. It is a claim about living things, not the universe. (IDers may extend that concept to the whole universe and pre-existing fine-tuning claims.)

Though fundamentally, ID is a *political* project to redefine "creation science" in a non-religious form so it passes muster under the 1st amendment prohibition on establishment of religion in public schools. It was never scientific to begin with. It was a fig leaf.

Mr Laurier said:

So assumptions that nobody ever actualy made.

Click to expand...

Think what you want.

They did assume there was junk DNA as an evolutionary leftover or a viral insertion they named endogenous retro viruses or ERVs, before finally figuring out those segments of DNA are involved in the growth and development of the fetus, and then are deactivated, but don’t let actual facts interfere with your shpiel.

Hans Blaster said:

That's the so-called "fine tuning" argument, not ID. ID does not come from physics or astronomy, but biology and biochemistry. It is a claim about living things, not the universe. (IDers may extend that concept to the whole universe and pre-existing fine-tuning claims.)

Though fundamentally, ID is a *political* project to redefine "creation science" in a non-religious form so it passes muster under the 1st amendment prohibition on establishment of religion in public schools. It was never scientific to begin with. It was a fig leaf.

Click to expand...

Stick to that spin if it floats your boat.

chad kincham said:

Stick to that spin if it floats your boat.

Click to expand...

If you'd like to show the astronomers, cosmologists, or physicists creating "Intelligent Design" go for it.

Mr Laurier said:

I would resist, just like the native Palestinians have done.
The problem is that the occupation are not neighbors. They are foreign invaders from across the sea.
And the Palestinians have given up over half of their [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] state. But the settlers keep taking more.

Click to expand...

That's pretty rich, considering your national anthem starts out: "O Canada! Our home and native land!"

Mr Laurier said:

Scientists named a specimen. That's all they did.

Click to expand...

Do you really expect me to believe that?

chad kincham said:

In fact there’s a scientific law called the law of biogenesis that states life only comes from other life.

Click to expand...

LOL

Bungle_Bear said:

No, it wasn't. The gospels and Acts are, at best, 2nd hand accounts. Paul didn't witness anything before his claimed Damascus road experience. And Revelation was written by John who wasn't born during Jesus' lifetime.

Click to expand...

Better do some actual study.

The apostles were eyewitnesses and wrote the New Testament, and every NT book but Revelation was written by 65 AD, and what they wrote was their eyewitness accounts that they’d been teaching.

Luke was a physician contemporary with the apostles, and Paul spent three years being taught by the risen Jesus, and reminded those he talked to such as king Agrippa, that the king personally was aware of the events of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection “because it was not done in a corner.

John the apostle wrote Revelation, too.

Luk 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

1Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

Estrid said:

So do you consider this proof of god?

Click to expand...

Do I consider what to be proof of God?

Speedwell said:

OK, I guess it is useless to ask why you have pursued an off-topic side discussion.

Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely, asking questions that are off topic is useless, I agree. Being critical of people who have to answer questions that are off topic is also useless. It is refreshing to find something that we agree about.