Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No? What about the abundance of evidence saying it is impossible for a human to walk on water?
This makes me chuckle, when you think of it, everything about God is illogical. The double standards by which TE operates is phenomenal, as it is okay for God to part the seas, walk on water, turn water to wine, yet when it comes to creation He is forced to adhere to rigidly, naturalistic laws and work in conjunction with what our "logic" dictates.
By the way, creationism does not demand God creating all things by blinking them into existence. Yes, let's take one definition and apply it across the board...shall we?
I lament over the fact that this term "creationism" has been stigmatized by those who attempt to rationalize away the super-natural with science, both of which are not compatible with each other.
Truthfully, TE's should be considered "creation"-ists as well, as they (along with every other believer) hold to the truth that God created, they just differ in their beliefs as to how.
Creationism can also simply represent other methods or mechanisms of creation God used to create all things, but of which cannot be known or defined by man.
And seeing how God consistently acts in the super-natural throughout all of scripture, it is a much more fitting ideal.
It would be inductive reasoning to say that Jesus could not walk on water because we have no experience of a human walking on water. But inductive reasoning is always open to disproof by the exception.
Seeing 10,000 white swans may lead you to believe all swans are white----until you see a black one. Seeing 10 million humans fail to walk on water may lead you to believe no human can walk on water----but it is not evidence against the possibility that one man did.
So how does science say a supernatural event is impossible?
No you didn't make that statement. What you did instead was show the huge hole in your argument. Science does not show us Jesus didn't walk on water, it just shows us what happens naturally when people step onto the surface of deep water. Science cannot say what would happen if instead of being a natural event it was supernatural, it only tells us about the natural consequences. As a result science cannot say what would have happened when God's only begotten son stepped onto the water.First off, I never made such a statement. However, science can't make such a statement either. Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world - not any supernatural ambit. Science requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events. Therefore, science cannot account for supernatural events. It cannot predict them. It cannot test for them. It cannot explain them. In fact, scientific conclusions are blind to them.
This is what makes science a limited enterprise. It's scope is only within the natural realm. If a supernatural event in the unobserved past occurred and left a fingerprint, this fingerprint would not be recognized as supernatural. Instead it would be interpreted as having a natural explanation.
This means science would provide wrong information if it ever is required to understand an event/condition that was/is supernatural in nature.
Jesus' walking on water was not a natural event, it was a supernatural one. Therefore, I'm not overly shocked to find out the evidence is against it. Your comment almost makes it sound like there could be a natural explanation.
A single experiment can't confirm or deny the existence of evolution.
Confirm, no. Deny, yes. Falsifiability in science can hinge on single sets of observations. By contrast, theories cannot be confirmed to be absolutely true but they can be shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt.
Not what I claimed - just pointing out an error.
If you reread what you just posted you will see it is exactly what you claimed.
Can a single experiment confirm or deny the existence of evolution? You said "yes" to the deny part.
And you went and changed "a single experiment" to "this single experiment" - so in other words, not even close to what you originally claimed.
Go be deliberately obtuse somewhere else.
I didn't change any of my posts. If you look you'll see none of them say the posts were edited.
Then again that doesn't fit into your fantasy land so I guess it must not be true
A single experiment can't confirm or deny the existence of evolution.
So this single experiment denied the existence of evolution? I don't think so.
Not even close, yet again....
Run along now.
No, atavisms can't bring dinosaurs back. But Jeff Goldblum could!
But don't we already have those? I think they're called turkeys. (At least, that's what it's always seemed like to me when I see their gigantinormous drumsticks on the supermarket shelves.)heh actually with help they could maybe, there is that chickensaurus project that is trying to chemically regress a chicken embryo and activate the remnant DNA and create a more dinosaur like chicken.
But don't we already have those? I think they're called turkeys. (At least, that's what it's always seemed like to me when I see their gigantinormous drumsticks on the supermarket shelves.)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?