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.
Not if you left. Had you been saved you would not have left.
HitchSlap said:Yes, I was saved, and I left.
Prove it.
When it comes to personal matters I believe his word is good enough on this forum.
You cannot question someone's Christianity if he claims to be a Christian here. For example it would be a huge no no for me to say that you are not a "true Christian" and I am not doing so. By that rule you cannot dispute someones claims of being a Christian in the past.
I think you are breaking a bigger rule than we might have.
Genetics, biological nanomachinery, DNA code (language),
etc. Let me also just throw this out there.
Peer-review is irrelevant as a requirement of science.
ID theory in a nutshell:
Observations: ID begins with observations that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). (An event is complex if it is unlikely, and specified if it matches some independent pattern.)
Hypothesis: Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI.
Experiment: Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be tested and discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. Mutational sensitivity tests can also be used to identify high CSI in proteins and other biological structures.
Conclusion: When experimental work uncovers irreducible complexity, or high CSI in biology, researchers conclude that such structures were designed. This is because, in our experience, intelligence is the only known cause of high CSI.
Subduction Zone said:Did you just attack Hitchslap's character?
It is against the forum rules to attack someones character.
In fact yours looks worse than my supposed no-no. To say that someone is not a Christian is a huge no no here.
Genetics, biological nanomachinery, DNA code (language),
etc. Let me also just throw this out there.
Peer-review is irrelevant as a requirement of science.
ID theory in a nutshell:
Observations: ID begins with observations that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). (An event is complex if it is unlikely, and specified if it matches some independent pattern.)
Hypothesis: Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI.
Experiment: Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be tested and discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. Mutational sensitivity tests can also be used to identify high CSI in proteins and other biological structures.
Conclusion: When experimental work uncovers irreducible complexity, or high CSI in biology, researchers conclude that such structures were designed. This is because, in our experience, intelligence is the only known cause of high CSI.
Then you can't use science to defend science.You can't use the Bible to defend the Bible especially since it is a flawed book.
Subduction Zone said:When it comes to personal matters I believe his word is good enough on this forum.
You cannot question someone's Christianity if he claims to be a Christian here. For example it would be a huge no no for me to say that you are not a "true Christian" and I am not doing so. By that rule you cannot dispute someones claims of being a Christian in the past.
I think you are breaking a bigger rule than we might have.
this is no evidence for evolution, not a single fact. not a one. (macro evolution).
Beats me. The alternative is you could prove your religion wrong by pitting it against well evidenced science. Funny how facts trump empty assertions.
So are you ever going to answer my question gradyll? What makes evolution so different from all other sciences in not being self correcting? Why would any scientist forgo earning themselves instant fame and fortune by disproving one of the most over reaching scientific theories ever?
No. Biologists would still be experts at biology if evolution were shown to be false. They'd have to change many of their notions and look at things in a new light, sure, but that doesn't mean they're not experts - science is always changing, to some degree. When Newton's laws were overturned by Einstein, no one lost their job over it.Because professors and other peers are only experts in their field WHILE the theory is valid
So one must be a Christian to be saved?
Interesting.
No it is not AV. It contains the word "Socialist" But was far from being a socialist party. Labels do not reality make.
Anyone can slap a label onto his banner but that does not mean he follows or abides by what that name implies. A good example being: My passport during the military dictatorship in my country, had written on the front cover in Greek: "Hellenic Democracy"; which was a far cry from the reality of living under the fascist boot of dictatorship.
It is not what you call yourself but how you carry yourself that matters.
I never said "Christian", you did. He said "saved". I said from what and prove it.
The question does your disbelief give you the comfort when there is no one to talk too? Do you sleep better believing in unbelief?
Let me ask you a serious question, since this thread is about an atheists [sic] world:
Do you see dinosaurs go past your window? have you heard them outside your house in the morning?
this is no evidence for evolution, not a single fact. not a one. (macro evolution). So why adhere to it? Christians are forced into the gap theory which is not accurate because it puts death before sin in the Bible. There are other problems with it too. But typically christians that are evolutionists will not take genesis literally. They will mess up on doctrines like the fall, creation, covenant of the rainbow, global flood, all come from genesis. If we only take some parts of genesis literally and not all parts....what does that mean for us? Should God not take our salvation literally because it doesn't fit? Just saying.
Because professors and other peers are only experts in their field WHILE the theory is valid. Would they really give it all up and accept it's wrong? I would love to see what's hidden at the back of some museums.
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?