Search results

No it doesn't. The terminology used in the Bible was so vague that no one could use it to figure out that it was the sun's mass that kept the earth and the moon in orbit. Try again.

Can you please repeat this in actual English, and not buzzwords? Yes, I agree. About the only conclusion I can reach is that some people assume God exists. In other words, you are just asking me to, like you, just assume that God exists. Huh? You think I've got the wrong point of...

How in the world did we get so far off topic?

Gott, we're just trying to say that if you are asking, "Why is God the way he is?" then you are starting off with the assumption that he exists. Starting with an assumption isn't always the best thing to do. If you start by asking, "Does God exist?" then you are not starting with the...

Left handed chicken?

What in the world are you talking about? I am talking about CrimsonLeaf's analogy with the broken window. Who's talking supernatural here?

You might as well ask how morality affects the fuel efficiency of the engines in Japanese cars. Your question assumes that there is a link between morality and pressures involved in natural selection and I don't think such a link exists.

This is very wrong. If we see a cannon ball flying through the sky, we can look at where it is now, we can look at where it is in one second from now, and two seconds, and we can use this to figure out where it was fired from.

But if you find their blood on the broken glass, if you have camera footage that shows they were near the window at the time, if you have soil samples on their feet that match the soil at the window's location and if they have no alibi, then would still say this?

Gott, I really think you have very little understanding of what you are talking about. You got your quote wrong and even attributed it to the wrong person.

I don't see the problem. If it is more logical to not tell, then they won't.

A person who puts his principles ahead of reality is an idiot.

Sorry, AV, I misread. But you are still under the delusion that a man is somehow not an ape. A man is an ape in the same way that 4 is an integer. And a chimp is an ape in the same way that 5 is an integer. And 4 can be an integer without also being a 5. Do you get it? There's no "man"...

But evolution doesn't say that, does it, AV? You've had this explained to you countless times, by me and also by many others. Why do you insist on saying these things when you know they are not true?

If you reject that the Earth orbits the sun because of a Biblical claim, how do you explain the evidence in the real world that can only be explained if the Earth orbits the sun?

You really think you can compare the two? For the Bible, we have the Bible and nothing else. There are no Egyptian records of the plagues, no Roman records of a miracle worker named Jesus. And yet take a historical figure - Captain Cook, Lincoln, Einstein. How much documentation is there...

Because they are so uneducated about evolution as to think that evolution actually says that a cat should be able to give birth to a dog.

You aren't seriously comparing the two, are you? You have eyewitness sources for the Bible? You're kidding, aren't you?

Here you go again. When did I ever move the goalposts? Got it in one, buddy! :thumbsup: See what you can do when you apply yourself? EXACTLY! Now, the question becomes... How do we tell if the documentation is a lie or not?

Eh? Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get how this applies to the passage I was quoting.