Search results

How do you know this, though? I certainly agree that, as time passes, more and more of the "phenomenology of the world" is fully explicable in terms of physics. But do we really have enough evidence to definitively say that this is this the case with respect to the decisions we make? In...

I don't know who would use this line of argument, but I have never argued anything like this. Nor implied anything like this I believe you have evaded my question.

I have not been reading other posts so perhaps you have covered this "objection": Could it not be the case that "human agency", floating freely from the rest nominal set of physical law, contributes causally to the actions we take? Stated otherwise, what solid arguments are there that exclude...

I think this is a fascinating topic. I will not attempt in this post to say anything more than this: I am not sure whether what I am about to write is relevant to the matter at hand, but I believe it may be. The use of the word "law" in relation to physics is, I believe, potentially misleading...

Yeah, right. Come on, at least make it believable. Precisely zero of my family, friends, acquaintances, acquaintances of acquaintances, etc. have died from the vaccine. And we are to believe that know many who died from it?

Indeed, and that post (or posts) contained some of the funniest, zany things that have ever been written. I believe one entry connected the vaccine to contracting "explosive diarrhea and a touch of the AIDS". You can't make this stuff up.

I am not sure exactly what you are saying, but you may be using a misleading argument that creationists often use. The creationist sometimes argues that since mutations are copying errors, such mutations cannot possibly lead to "improvements" over time as the theory asserts - "how can an error...

There is no error. You are assuming something that is incorrect - that there is not direct evidence that humans evolved - you imply that while there is evidence that evolution is real, the step to include humans in the evolution model is an unsubstantiated leap of faith. I guarantee this is...

Strawman - no one has said anything like this.

Of course, God could have created the world in 6 days 10,000 years ago. But so what? God could have done many things. What matters is what the evidence suggests did actually happen.

No, you are clearling evading. You said this: Both evolutionists and creationists make the same mistake. “This is what we know, therefore it had to be this way”. And then they argue. You are basically saying that proponents of evolution use circular reasoning - that they a priori assume we had...

That is not what you said. You said: “This is what we know, therefore it had to be this way”. I submit it is a gross mischaracterization to suggest that this how evolutionists think - you are representing them as highy dogmatic and close-minded. And I suggest there is no evidence for this...

Fair enough, I did not read your post carefully enough. I am pretty sure you cannot support this claim with regard to evolutionists - no evolutionist has said anything like this, I believe. Why is it arrogant? I agree that God could have done whatever He wanted to do, but if the evidence...

What credible evidence can you present that illegal immigrants commit more crimes of violence than anyone else? I am not saying you are wrong, but claims should be supported with evidence.

Even though this has repeatedly been pointed, posters continue to mislead readers about this text. The majority of translations have "sin is lawlessness", or something equivalent. Lawlessness is a general concept, with no required specificity to the Law of Moses.

This is a common notion - that to be "science", reproduction is required. However, I believe the expert consensus is otherwise - from Scientific American: Creationist Claim: Evolution is unscientific because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed...

Of what relevance is this? The evidence for evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with belief in the existence of God. You are trying to tell us that just because people do not believe in God, they are going to do "bad science" and come up with a bad theory. Apparently not. Lucky for the rest...

Random equations? On what grounds, exactly, do you conclude that the equations are random? And the theory of evolution is not about the "entire universe". What inconsistencies? Please be specific. I do not know enough about this to comment. Which ones? Which sciences do evolutionists...

Here is a claim made by a poster: THEY determine what is fact and redefine theory, and so it is fact/theory. (In theological circles, people use to call this Gnosticism.) Well, of course it is biologists (and perhaps certain other specialists) who developed the theory of evolution. What did...

The titles are misleading and it certainly appears just laying the titles out there is a ploy intended to sew confusion in the mind of the reader. When readers see these lines: Evolution as fact Evolution as fact and theory Evolution as fact and not theory Evolution as a collection of theories...