A chalange to belivers in Evolution

[AV1611VET]

I'll take that as a "no," just another in the long list of points you have failed to back up.

Your position is incredibly weak.

About as weak as gravity, which is the weakest of the four major forces in the universe?

BUT was discovered by cause-and-effect?

(It's invisible, you know.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you familiar with the fact that no scientist is presenting one of them as absolute indisputable fact?

Those different Christian denominations can't say the same thing, can they?

But they can all say, with 100% consensus: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.

What's that say for atheism?

 

[Kylie]

About as weak as gravity, which is the weakest of the four major forces in the universe?

BUT was discovered by cause-and-effect?

(It's invisible, you know.)

Gravity, as weak as it is, is still infinitely stronger than your position.

Because, you see, gravity actually works.

All you've done is run away from the discussion when faced with questions you can't answer.

But they can all say, with 100% consensus: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.

What's that say for atheism?

You think that it means something? It doesn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Gravity, as weak as it is, is still infinitely stronger than your position.

Gravity didn't found Israel or the United States, did it?

Because, you see, gravity actually works.

It's supposed to.

All you've done is run away from the discussion when faced with questions you can't answer.

That's acceleration, not gravity.

You think that it means something?

Yes.

It doesn't.

Then don't try to convince me non-consensus means something to you -- (other than an excuse).

 

[driewerf]

Merry Christmas

You have now used that answer at least three times. I am going to assume that you consider this a rock solid example, an argument devoid of any weakness, armoured against any inquiry.
So I am going to ask you to explain in detail why you think this is a valid answer. Step by step. If possibly, please differentiate assumption from empirical evidence from reasoning from conclusion. This will improve the clarity.
Don't be shy to assume me an Immensely Idiotic Ignoramus, to which everything needs to be explained. I prefer boredom over brevity and redundancy over lack of clarity. I want to know what you hope to demonstrate with that answer for I fail to understand it.


kind regards,
driewerf

 

[stevevw]

I can beat ANY evolution or materialistic theory just with one question

WHY ?

To cut things short please take some time to ask the question WHY to your belives and post something when you are shure that you can't ask the question WHY anymore

I think the 'why' is relevant as science cannot help but include the 'why' if the science method excludes supernatural causes. Excluding naturalistic causes goes beyond science and into metaphysics as its restricting all possible alternatives and claiming life is the result of a naturalistic process (methodological naturalism). That's more an ontological claim than science.

That is not to say that evolution does not happen but rather the further claim as to why it happens (naturalistic as opposed to supernatural). Otherwise science cannot be used to claim that creation is false and has to remain silent. The 'how' of science is just a description of behavior but not about what is and that is where it should stop.

But unfortunately that doesn't happen and that's why we cannot separate the scientists from the science. Belief always comes into it in one way or another.

 

[Frank Robert]

Are you familiar with some ten different theories as to how we got our moon?

Are you familar with the theory that we never got to the moon, taht it was a complete farce.

 

[driewerf]

The reason people believe in evolution is mostly due to people not being able to comprehend God being able to make things in the span of a day. Despite all He has done some people still want things in a way only they can understand, it takes away the faith element and gives them something to rely on their own understanding.

The reason people accept the Theory of Evolution as valid is because multiple lines of empirical evidence point toward a gradual development of different life forms on earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you familar with the theory that we never got to the moon, taht it was a complete farce.

Are you familiar with the idea that the depth of the moondust was considered immense at one time; but was found to be otherwise?

 

[Estrid]

The reason people believe in evolution is mostly due to people not being able to comprehend God being able to make things in the span of a day. Despite all He has done some people still want things in a way only they can understand, it takes away the faith element and gives them something to rely on their own understanding.

You just made that up and irs completely wrong

 

[Estrid]

Are you familar with the theory that we never got to the moon, taht it was a complete farce.

It's not a theory except in the most informal
usage of the word

 

[Frank Robert]

Are you familiar with the idea that the depth of the moondust was considered immense at one time; but was found to be otherwise?

Are you familiar with the reality that others have opposing beliefs? Keep in mind that a belief is an simply an attitude that something is the case

 

[Estrid]

What do you make of Genesis when it says God created the Earth in 6 days and rested the 7th

I make of it the same as I make of the creation
stories from other religions.

You may figure all but one are wrong, I just add one
one more

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you familiar with the reality that others have opposing beliefs?

Yes.

For every belief, there is an opposite unbelief.

God will break the tie.

 

[AV1611VET]

You just made that up and it's completely wrong.

I can see how you would think that, seeing as how God, if He created a loaf of warm raisin bread in an instant, would be accused of being deceptive.

 

[Ross_Souls]

1. Were Adam & Eve mutant copy errors, made in the image and likeness of God from the dust of the ground?
2. Was Jesus a mutant copy error?
3. Do you accept everything the popes accept? or do you pick and choose?

And the answer to 1 and 2 is I have no idea! As regards the answer to 3, I don't accept anything pope's say.

 

[AV1611VET]

And the answer to 1 and 2 is I have no idea!

You have no idea?

Why not?

What does evolution say?

Can't you apply evolution across the board?

 

[Kylie]

Gravity didn't found Israel or the United States, did it?

And Christianity did?

It's supposed to.

So is religion, yet it has not produced any religious explanations for things we see in the real world that have withstood testing.

That's acceleration, not gravity.

At least you admit you are running away from answering inconvenient questions.

Yes.

It doesn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

So is religion, yet it has not produced any religious explanations for things we see in the real world that have withstood testing.

Like speaking in tongues?

 

[Kylie]

Like speaking in tongues?

Would you care to provide a single example of someone speaking in tongues that does not have a more real-world explanation?