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.
The site is by an organization, originally founded by the current head of the National Institutes of Health (and an evangelical Christian), that promotes acceptance of science by Christians. The particular blog entry I linked to is by me -- I agree with their goal.From what I gather so far, the site I can't seem to get onto, is by a man who believes science and theism (at least) do work together, and so is attacked by both Atheists and Theists. I happen to agree with him, though without reading his stuff, I don't know if we agree for the same reasons.
The probability of your existence is highly unlikely, but yet you still exist. So any such probability calculation of your existence is meaningless.
again irrelevant.
this is different from the birth analogy since in a birth any possible option is ok.
realy? so you have no problem to accept that its possible to get a complex eye at once? why do you think that no scientist believe that its possible to get a complex biological system in a single event?
the reason is simple: no one think that a complex eye can evolve at once because the chance to that is extremely unlikely. if a complex eye code by only about 10 genes (just for the sake of the argument) then we are talking about a sequence space of 4^10,000. this number is so big that even if the number of possible functional eyes is far above the nubmer of atoms in the universe- we will not get a functional eye even in a trillion of years. this is why no one believe that a complex eye can evolve at once.Huh? This has absolutely nothing to do with things appearing in a "single event".
You're not making any sense.
the reason is simple: no one think that a complex eye can evolve at once because the chance to that is extremely unlikely.
All true, except for your apparent idea of the sort of thing I might be referring to by "absurd". An example of what I am talking about, is the supposed proof that there can be no omnipotent being --"could such a being create a rock so big he could not lift it?" The question is absurd in more than one way. It assumes validity to a self-contradictory concept. It also ignores that such a being would have no reason to do so, and certainly not for the purpose of entertaining the mental vagaries of lesser beings; and since such a being (the very inventor of "what is", or he is not self-existent God) has no reason for doing so, the proposed scenario is a non-thing by definition, and therefore absurd.
it's clear you know the verses, so why not accept them?
“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” Matthew 19: 4-5
"“For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.” Matthew 24:37-39
Here we have a logical fallacy, formally known as "Denying the antecedent."Not the trespass of many men, but of one, the "first" man.... If you discount Genesis as literal, then you actually discount the need for the sacrifice of Jesus and why...... You make the Gift null and void and for no reason at all....
Read Genesis about the serpent. Very beautiful, but treacherous.
I had one of my inmate crew working with me one day in a ditch, neither of us realizing there was a Cottonmouth behind him in a hollow in the ditch wall. When I saw it, undisturbed and peaceful, I told him gently to come on out with me, and after he did, I told him to turn around. He had a definite reaction to what he saw. The aspect was peaceful, even pretty, but we knew better than to trust peace with a viper.
True. As it happens, the Serpent in the garden was apparently Satan himself, and therefore actually wicked. I don't know if he ever takes that form anymore or not, but I kind of doubt it. Also, I tend to think it was more of a dragon sort of thing than what we know of as snake. The actually "wicked" point, to my mind, does not translate to every snake or even viper, since then.Yeah I get that the serpent generally is a symbol of deceit. But earlier here it seemed someone challenged whether God created a beast that is actually wicked.
Also, I cant consider hiding for safety, nor stealth in hunting, as indicative of a deceitful character. Those are just normal behaviors that any hunting animal, including humans, will do.
coolThe site is by an organization, originally founded by the current head of the National Institutes of Health (and an evangelical Christian), that promotes acceptance of science by Christians. The particular blog entry I linked to is by me -- I agree with their goal.
Only IF he does in fact exist. And by God, I mean Self-Existent First Cause With Intent, the One and Only such being. Omnipotence is by no means absurd for such a being. Our stance and comprehension and evidences for such are irrelevance as to his existence.But all you are advocating here is accepting that there must be an explanation for god's omnipotence, despite its absurdity, with no justification other than blind belief.
What is it about this incident that makes you think that the Cottonmouth was treacherous rather than merely dangerous?
Only IF he does in fact exist. And by God, I mean Self-Existent First Cause With Intent, the One and Only such being. Omnipotence is by no means absurd for such a being. Our stance and comprehension and evidences for such are irrelevance as to his existence.
If we find evidences, so much the better, but the facts remain regardless of our view of them. As such the facts are of value (again, IF it is a fact he exists), and so is apprehension to them, regardless of the reasons.
Well, I thought so too, but then you said omnipotence was absurd, while I insist omnipotence is a necessary attribute of God. So I said so.But that is a tautological argument, and thus an epistemological hindrance.
How about we define it as scientists actually define it?
From what I gather so far, the site I can't seem to get onto, is by a man who believes science and theism (at least) do work together, and so is attacked by both Atheists and Theists. I happen to agree with him, though without reading his stuff, I don't know if we agree for the same reasons.
So, Creationists, can any of you step up to the plate
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?