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.
If you're talking about my Apple Challenge, I'm wondering why you can't give me a scientific conclusion as to why it is wrong - (despite the fact that I've given you a scientific reason as to why it is right). The Apple Challenge is your chance to shine, and impress me with your knowledge of science. Instead, you guys make fun of it, then wonder why I still think ex nihilo creation is viable.
Yes --- He wrote Revelation ---
I'll be your friend, if you will be mine..I notice that i have exactly 0 friends, the same amount of requests made for said friends here on the forums. I make no apologies for the truth, though if i am wrong Apologies if i hurt your feelings. Can you honestly say, that some of your repeated mantras are not intended to offend?
That "higher standard" is a standard that scripture itself could not meet. you reject a concept that is supported by no less than the entire field of biology. every piece of biological evidence is consistent with evolution. every cell, every protein, every organ, every gene, every bone, every fossil, every DNA, every RNA, EVERYTHING! yet you reject it. On the other hand there is nothing to support the biblical story of creation outside of the bible.I don't see you guys patting me on the back when I say I hold science up to a Higher Standard, or that God gifts us scientists, either. The only time I ridicule science is when it sticks its nose where it doesn't belong --- misinterpreting the Bible.
And yet, with all that fancy science, you can't tell me how Jesus walked on water; or is that an example of your first sentence?That "higher standard" is a standard that scripture itself could not meet. you reject a concept that is supported by no less than the entire field of biology. every piece of biological evidence is consistent with evolution. every cell, every protein, every organ, every gene, every bone, every fossil, every DNA, every RNA, EVERYTHING! yet you reject it. On the other hand there is nothing to support the biblical story of creation outside of the bible.
We ridicule scripture when it treds on the territory of science. Science is backed up by something more than a word or a collection of words. Things like observation and experimentation. These observations and experimentations are repeatable and verifiable.
nobody has to take my word for it that humans are related to chimpanzees. I can show genetic evidence, ERV evidence, physiologic evidence, compare the sequences of every protein in both species, molecular biological evidence from every sequence in both species. perhaps if your ideas had more behind them than faith then evidence-based scientific thinkers would take it more seriously.
LoL. If all you want out of science is to validate your beliefs about the bible, your going at it all wrong.And yet, with all that fancy science, you can't tell me how Jesus walked on water; or is that an example of your first sentence?
Be very careful painting with your broad brushIf you're talking about my Apple Challenge<snipped to get to the point> you guys make fun of it...
I finally had to break down and give you guys the answer to it. --- four times.
I accepted the answer, "no evidence", even though I stated there was indeed physical evidence that one could [hypothetically] present.Be very careful painting with your broad brush
I did NOT make fun of it
I answered it directly (and I wasnt the only one).
You even repped me (and I'd like to assume you repped the others who anwered the way I did), because it was OBVIOUS that NO evidence could be brought forth
You keep bringing up your Apple Challenge, and you keep LYING about the results, in that you paint "you guys" with a broad broad brush.
The least you could do is recognize that more than one person actually "got it"
And yet, with all that fancy science, you can't tell me how Jesus walked on water; or is that an example of your first sentence?
You know what? That's great, and I really mean that with no sarcasm.I accepted the answer, "no evidence", even though I stated there was indeed physical evidence that one could [hypothetically] present.
I vaguely remember one person stating what that physical evidence was.
And yet, with all that fancy science, you can't tell me how Jesus walked on water; or is that an example of your first sentence?
There are spiders and a lizard that walk and or run on water; do they qualify as deities? They deserve to be mentioned in the bible on a par with Jesus. Perhaps a new gospel dedicated to water walkers?
David Copperfield is also illegible!
Consider it stopped.So are you now going to stop broadbrushing in regard to your Apple Challenge?
How do you suppose science should investigate the claim that 2000 years ago, somebody walked on water?And yet, with all that fancy science, you can't tell me how Jesus walked on water; or is that an example of your first sentence?
The same way they would investigate the claim that the Spanish Armada was defeated in 1588, I suppose.How do you suppose science should investigate the claim that 2000 years ago, somebody walked on water?
The same way they would investigate the claim that the Spanish Armada was defeated in 1588, I suppose.
How do you suppose science should investigate the claim that 2000 years ago, somebody walked on water?
those arent the same. there are countless journals, diaries, treaties, physical evidences of war. Also, this isnt a supernatural claim. it is well wthin the realm of historical & physical plausibility outright.The same way they would investigate the claim that the Spanish Armada was defeated in 1588, I suppose.
That "higher standard" is a standard that scripture itself could not meet. you reject a concept that is supported by no less than the entire field of biology. every piece of biological evidence is consistent with evolution. every cell, every protein, every organ, every gene, every bone, every fossil, every DNA, every RNA, EVERYTHING! yet you reject it. On the other hand there is nothing to support the biblical story of creation outside of the bible.
We ridicule scripture when it treds on the territory of science. Science is backed up by something more than a word or a collection of words. Things like observation and experimentation. These observations and experimentations are repeatable and verifiable.
nobody has to take my word for it that humans are related to chimpanzees. I can show genetic evidence, ERV evidence, physiologic evidence, compare the sequences of every protein in both species, molecular biological evidence from every sequence in both species. perhaps if your ideas had more behind them than faith then evidence-based scientific thinkers would take it more seriously.
you really didnt respond to anything i said except to handwave it under the phrase "fancy science". creation is supported by one source. that source has questionable origins and is filled with problems of historical veracity and physical plausibility. on top of that, the story is not in any way reflective of the universe or how it operates. Talk about higher standard, creation cant even meet the standard of elementary school science. it fails at things like the solar system and photosynthesis.And yet, with all that fancy science, you can't tell me how Jesus walked on water; or is that an example of your first sentence?
I didn't say war, I said the defeat of the Spanish Armada. Science today can no more validate the Spanish Armada, than it can Jesus walking on water; so the question, "How do you suppose science should investigate the claim that 2000 years ago, somebody walked on water?" cannot be ascertained within the realm of science.those arent the same. there are countless journals, diaries, treaties, physical evidences of war.
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?